SickandTired

The Queen would be obligated by centuries of royal tradition to sign any law that removed her as the head of state. Tradition is equal to the law when it comes to these things. In the unlikely event that she refused then Canada would simply declare a new constitution for itself like the US did in 1776. The Queen has no army she could use to stop Canada from doing that.IOW - all laws and treaties in this country exist only because the Canadian people want them. If Canadians decide that they do not want those laws anymore then they will repeal them or pass new laws. Actually, it's even better than that... While TNE is correct that Canada cannot change its Constitution wihtout a "proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada" (i.e. Queen's assent), the Queen has already legally given up her right to refuse such assent in section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982: That is, once Canadians have followed the amendment procedures set out in our Constitution, the Queen's assent is dictated by law to be mandatory...and since the Queen had to sign off on this provision in the first place, there's no validity to the argument that the Queen is more than a figurehead and that Canadians are not sovereign to amend their Constitution. As to Native sovereignty / treaties / proclamations, Canada specifically has legal authority to amend or otherwise deal with these issues as set out in section 35 and 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982...we need only include such an amendment as an agenda item in a Constitutional Conference and invite aboriginal peoples representatives to participate in the discussion on that item. Again, the Queen has already signed off on this so perhaps TNE you should do even the slightest bit of homework if you hope to be an advocate for Native peoples and their place in relation to the rest of Canada. FTA I have been patiently waiting for Tsi's rebuttal - guess he gave up...

Someone named Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne' posted this on another board that I thought were wise words... That is the problem with oral history. We have seen oral history of the events of the last 5 months in Caledonia get twisted and turned to suit people's agenda on both sides of the issue... But then what would you do with your time???

How about the mention that these trust monies have already been accounted for and paid to Six Nations? Would that suffice? From the governments Statement of Defence to Six Nations claims...

You are taking the words of a couple of politicians who spoke something in a house of commons debate as supporting evidence for a position? Have you watched a debate in parliament? Politicians spout all kinds of rhetoric. Not much of a basis for an argument. And you accuse me of ignoring facts... I prefer court rulings myself as per the rule of law. Perhaps like this court ruling where the Haldimand Proclamation is described as a DEED and not a TREATY. Of course, no elected politician arose from his seat in the parliament and proclaimed this as fact in a debate, so it must be suspect.... http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol05/261.html and... and...

FTA, I as well have spent hours reading the history and have not come to the same conclusion as you mention. I would be curious to read some of your research that indicates that the Plank Road Lands, which Douglas Creek Estates is part of (1/2 mile on either side of the Plank Road for 6 miles on either side of the Grand River), were not part of a valid land surrender. If you could forward any links that support that position, it would be appreciated...as I have not found a lot in my quest for both sides of the issue... Here are a couple of sources of information that I have read (FYI)... http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...imResearch2.pdf (someone's listing of a bunch of Google links) http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...FileNo40695.pdf (a review of the Six Nations claims and the government's Statement of Defence to those claims)

In 1914 and in 1951, the 'holding' of Six Nations would have been recognized as the current lands of the Six Nations reservation. I fail to see how these statements, made during a debate in the House of Commons, have anything to do with the land claims of additional territory that was apparently surrendered to the Crown in the 1840's...

The interesting thing I find is that the government of Ontario and Canada has already stated it's position in 1995 on the Plank Road Lands (of which Douglas Creek is part of) in their answer to the claims made by Six Nations...This is the section from that statement that deals with the Plank Road lands... STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROAD LANDS 111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender. 112. In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for a sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under the Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844. So the government's position in 1995 was that all the talk of leases of the Plank Road lands that happened in the 1830's ended up being meaningless. The leases were never set up and ultimately, the Plank Road lands were not included in Six Nation's selection of their current reserve lands and the Plank Road lands were surrendered and then sold along with the rest of the remaining SN lands in the original grant. Now this was the Statement of Defence - an early statement of position before the court actions get going (which were stopped when an out of court process was agreed to by the government and SN) so it is not settled or proven as fact - but it was the government's position then. I wonder how that position has changed (if it has)? Just today, Chief MacNaugton (lead SN negotiator) was on 900CHML stating that Douglas Creek Estates was not an occupation, it was a reclamation. He described it this way; since the government had not made the lease payments, they were reclaiming the land just like any lease holder would. But it is the government's position that the land was never leased in 1995. Have they changed their position from 1995? Also, the surrender was not something that just happened on a Friday afternoon over a couple of drinks. The dates show that it took 4 years to get the surrender deal finalized. The moving of Six Nations people onto the selected Reserve lands must have meant that they understood the deal or why agree to move onto the current Reserve lands?? So what is taking months and months to negotiate? Tsi wants us to believe that the government has already capitulated and agreed that the entire Grand River tract claim has been agreed to by the government - but MacNaughton's comments today make that claim suspect. Obviously from the 1995 Statement of Defence, the government must have documentation detailing it's position (there are supposedly 70,000 pieces of documentation related to the specific claims Six Nations have made). This standoff has been going on now for almost 6 months, with many supposed negotiating sessions, yet none of either sides position has been detailed further. Other than the rhetoric that is widely broadcast that "the land is ours" or "the surrender was not valid" or "the land was leased and payments have not been made". But all without any supporting documentation or even reasons why these positions are taken. I would also like to see and hear what the reasons are that surrenders are not valid and also whether the government has changed is position from their 1995 Statement of Defence. I guess everyone will continue to have to wait and see...

Says you... The governments position is clear. They originally agreed to lease the land from Six Nations. Then leases were refused by Sir Head. The land question lingered until Six Nations agreed to select their protected reserve lands which excluded the Plank Road lands (including Douglas Creek Estates). There is clear evidence that the surrender of the lands by the Mississauga were not clear. The land was not surveyed before the surrender was signed - so by your definition (and some mysterious International Law that is not referenced), the Mississauga land surrender is invalid. Can't have it both ways... From: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ (THAYENDANEGEA - Joseph Brant) "According to the original Haldimand grant, a tract of approximately two million acres, from the source to the mouth of the river and six miles deep on each side, had been given to the loyalist Six Nations Indians. Later the government claimed that a mistake had been made in the original grant in that the northern portion had never been bought from the Mississaugas and the king accordingly could not grant what he had not bought." ...and from the same site for (TEKARIHOGEN - John Brant)"They were especially anxious about the northern half of their prospective property which had a flaw in its title, this part of the tract not having been bought from its original Mississauga Ojibwa owners before Governor Haldimand made his grant – an error easily explained by the lack of proper surveys and by the general ignorance of the country in 1784. The Six Nations had always expected and hoped that a legal purchase would eventually be made for them that would set this error straight." Anyone who wants to review evidence of Six Nations land surrenders should read MILLER v. THE KING [1950] 1 D.L.R. 513 (also reporter: [1950] S.C.R. 168) Supreme Court of Canada, Kerwin, Taschereau, Rand, Kellock and Locke JJ., 5 December 1949 http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol05/298.html It includes: By para. 13 of the petition of right, it is alleged that on February 5, 1798, Captnin Joseph Brant, acting under a power of attorney from certain chiefs of what were then the Five Nations Indians, in pursuance of arrangements made with the Government of Upper Canada, executed a formal surrender to the Crown of "the lands to be sold". When asked for particulars as to the nature of the deed of surrender, the suppliants delivered a copy of the grant which disclosed that the request advanced on behalf of the Five Nations Indians was that the surrender of 352,707 acres of land be accepted for the sole purpose of enabling His Majesty to grant the lands to certain named purchasers for the consideration stated in a schedule to the document. My head is clear, but thanks for the concern...

1st-there is no evidence that has been forwarded that the surrender of the land (Grand River Tract) did not have a proper description in the governments statement of defence or anything I have seen that has been provided since then. In fact, if that is the yardstick to measure by, the original surrender of the entire tract by the Mississauga to the Crown was most definitely faulty as the land had not even been surveyed at the time of the original surrender. Therefore, the land is not Six Nations and they should leave and give it back to the Mississauga. That is the problem with the logic being espoused that no land can be surrendered to the Crown, but we want the land that the Mississauga surrendered as it is ours. 2nd, there is also evidence that the Grand River lands were surrendered with the consent of the people. This accused theft did not happen overnight. It was a matter that was debated for a number of years by Six Nations in the 1840's.

The governments position in 1995 in their Statement of Defence was this... HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROADS LANDS 111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender. 112 In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under that Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844. Douglas Creek (the current occupation) is part of this Plank Road Tract of land that was entered as a claim in 1995 (by the elected Band Council). You can read the entire Government Statement of Defence to all the claims made by Six Nations here... http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...FileNo40695.pdf I doubt if burning some cars and tires and beating up some camermen would drastically change the governments position as granny (aka saga) would like to believe...

granny (aka saga) - your statement is false. The developers Henco did not falsify any archaelogical report. They did not scrape the land clean before the study was done. The Henning’s (developers) have nothing to do with the original survey. The Archaeological Company that did the original survey worked for the Government of Ontario and reported directly to them. Henco as the developer only had to pay for the survey and they got a copy and a blessing to proceed. Once the Government clears the land for development after reviewing the Archaeological Survey Report, Henco is free to proceed. If there is any proven deficiencies in the original work and therefore blame, it is with the original Archaeological Company for not doing a proper survey (which I do not believe). Anyways, trying to villainize the Henning’s in this is WRONG and cheap petty politics. Again, it is NOT Henco’s archaeological survey. It is the Government’s of Ontario survey. Henco is neither responsible nor accountable for the survey work and they have no control over it. Have a listen… http://mfile.akamai.com/21069/wma/ondemand...11_15-56-57.wma If there were any deficiencies in the original work, it would be a matter between the licensed Archaeological Survey Company, the Government of Ontario and probably with the Ontario Archaeological Society. To undertake any kind archaeological field work in Ontario, the Ontario Heritage Act requires that a person hold a valid archaeological licence [under Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, section 48(1)], issued by the Province of Ontario. Having a licence puts some obligations on the licence holder. He or she must report on research findings to the Province [section 65 (1)] in accordance with reporting requirements stipulated in the Act and ministry guidelines. Licence holders are also required to report all new sites found during the field work. New sites that are found are added to the Archaeological Sites Database. More on Archaeoligical regulations can be read here…http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/archplan.htm

There is a case from the courts that confirms that the Haldimand Proclamation is not a treaty in the eyes of the court. The court consider the document a deed... LOGAN v. STYRES ET AL. (sub nom. LOGAN v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA) http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol05/261.html "The Parliament of Canada has legislative authority under s. 91(24) of the B.N.A. Act to provide for the surrender of reserved Indian lands, even though this be done by a method which interferes with the system of internal government of Indian bands by hereditary chiefs. Members of the Six Nations Indians who settled on reserved land conveyed by the Haldimand Deed of October 25,1784 (sometimes called the Haldimand Treaty), a transfer confirmed by the Simcoe Deed of January 14, 1793, did so under the protection of the Crown, and they and their posterity consequently owed allegiance to the Crown, becoming subjects thereof. It cannot therefore be contended that they are immune from the competent laws of Canada, however unfair or unjust it may be in particular circumstances to interfere with their traditional system of internal government."