|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) says Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council has no authority to be signing agreements regarding treaty lands with the City of Brantford and that it will not allow its relationship to the land to be reduced to an “interest.”
“It must be stated plainly: the Six Nations of the Grand River as a signatory to this MOU, are just the elected Band Administration and have no authority to represent the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, to speak on behalf of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, or to enter into agreements that purport to bind the Haudenosaunee Confederacy or diminish its jurisdiction, laws, rights, or responsibilities,” the HCCC said in a statement.
The statement comes after SNGR signed an MOU with the City of Brantford on Aug. 18 regarding the city’s boundary adjustments so that Six Nations could advocate with the city to put pressure on Ontario “so that both of our communities could prosper.”
Six Nations community members expressed concerns about the MOU on social media and SNGR sent out a press release explaining why it signed the MOU.
“First Nations in Ontario have no legal way to benefit from development on lands that were once home to First Nations people,” SNGR said. “Until nine years ago, municipalities in Ontario were able to charge and collect development fees that could be passed onto First Nations in recognition of their historical land interests and inherent rights.”
SNGR says Ontario changed this legislation, disregarding First Nations’ rights to benefit from development on Treaty lands that were never signed away, surrendered or given up by First Nations; permitting everyone else to benefit from development, except First Nations.
“In fact, Ontario announced just days ago that they are rewarding municipalities who do not charge development fees—limiting even further, any possible legal way for First Nations to see benefit from development on our lands.”
For three years, SNGR said, Six Nations and Brantford have “asked permission” from Ontario to do something different, “to be creative and innovative” so that both communities can prosper.
“Our efforts were ignored,” SNGR said. “We (Brantford and SNGR) will continue to advocate to Ontario to make the necessary legislative changes to right their wrongs.”
SNGR said the MOU has received a lot of support from other municipalities across Ontario.
The MOU, SNGR said, is the beginning steps toward future collaboration and discussions that aims to see Six Nations benefit through a Community Prosperity Fund.
“Nothing in this MOU will or is intended to take away from the Treaty, constitutional, or inherent rights of Six Nations of the Grand River. The MOU does not sell, surrender, or transfer any Six Nations lands, rights, or interests. The MOU is not a final agreement about the boundary lands.”
SNGR said the MOU is a “starting point. It puts in writing that Six Nations and the City of Brantford intend to continue discussions and identify matters that need to be worked through. Before any formal agreement is signed, community consultation will occur. No rights have been surrendered. No final decision has been made.”
The HCCC, however, took exception to the announcement.
“The Haudenosaunee cannot and will not accept a framework that reduces our relationship to these lands to an “interest,” an economic benefit, or a seat at the table after decisions concerning development have already been established. Our relationship to these lands does not originate with municipal boundaries, planning processes, or agreements between governments. It is grounded in our responsibilities, laws, relationships, and the long-standing connection of the Haudenosaunee to the land.”
The boundary adjustment includes 7,563 acres of land transferred for future development and states that Six Nations will share in the economic prosperity of such development.
“From a Haudenosaunee perspective, prosperity cannot be defined simply by financial participation in development. True prosperity requires that the land, the waters, the people, and those faces yet to come are considered in every decision. Our principles call upon us to act with responsibility, respect, balance, and friendship—not to surrender or diminish our inherent jurisdiction in exchange for economic benefits.”
The HCCC also said it was concerned that the MOU has not been publicly released.
“The public is being asked to accept the City of Brantford and the elected Band Administration’s characterization of an agreement whose contents have not been disclosed for public review. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council has not been provided the MOU and therefore cannot accept claims about what the agreement establishes, what commitments it contains, or what authority it purports to recognize. An agreement concerning lands and matters of such significance to the Haudenosaunee cannot be shielded from scrutiny while simultaneously being presented publicly as a meaningful framework for cooperation and shared prosperity. Transparency is fundamental to a respectful relationship, and the HCCC expects the complete MOU to be made public.”
The land in question is unsurrendered land, says the HCCC and any development on it requires the consent of the HCCC.
“Anything short of consent from the HCCC will render development of these lands unlawful and will jeopardize any development where we will empower our people to protect these lands from encroachment and theft. The Haudenosaunee will not allow consultation, collaboration, or economic benefit arrangements to be presented as substitutes for recognition of our laws, responsibilities, and jurisdiction.”
The HCCC says Brantford needs to recognize that the HCCC is not just another stakeholder.
“If Brantford is serious about building a respectful relationship, then that relationship must begin with an honest recognition that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy are not simply another stakeholder in the development of our lands. We expect governments and municipalities to engage with the Haudenosaunee on the basis of mutual respect, responsibility, and nation-to-nation relations, and to recognize that development cannot proceed by treating our jurisdiction as an issue to be managed through municipal planning processes. The Haudenosaunee will continue to stand for the land, our laws, our people, and generations yet unborn, and we will assess and evaluate future actions by whether they demonstrate genuine respect for those responsibilities, not merely by the words contained in an agreement.”
What’s more, the City of Brantford still has a decades-old, active injunction against the HCCC related to protests on development projects in the city around 2008.
“The City cannot publicly speak of strengthening relationships, respect, and shared prosperity while maintaining an injunction against the legitimate Haudenosaunee government that directly affects the ability of our people to exercise their responsibilities on our own territory,” the HCCC said. “This contradiction cannot be ignored. An injunction against the Haudenosaunee is not simply a legal matter between two parties; it creates a continuing environment of uncertainty and risk for Haudenosaunee people who are exercising their responsibilities to protect and care for these lands. It is unacceptable to seek economic agreements and public recognition with one entity while simultaneously using the authority of the Canadian legal system against the Haudenosaunee and those acting under its direction.”
The HCCC also called the public MOU signing with the use of sacred symbols like wampums “deeply disrespectful” and “insulting.”
“The use of Haudenosaunee wampum to present or legitimize an agreement between the City of Brantford and the elected Band Administration is inappropriate and misleading. Wampum is not a decorative symbol to be used to give an appearance of Haudenosaunee legitimacy to an agreement. Wampum carries meaning, law, relationship, responsibility, and the commitments made between parties under Haudenosaunee governance. No foreign entity operating under a Canadian governmental framework has the right to enter the sacred circle of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and take, display, or use our sacred intellectual and cultural property—including our Wampum Belts, treaties, and other sacred items—in a manner that misrepresents their meaning, authority, or relationship to Haudenosaunee governance.”
Originally published in the Two Row Times, August 26, 2026 (Volume 14, Issue 2), page 3.