OPP finally act

[raz395]

There will never be a "peaceful resolution" because of the militant stance that Six Nations has taken. Caledonia, like most other parts of Canada, had changed in the last 40 or 50 years. Whatever old animosities there were had erroded because new generations are taking over, generations that were educated and raised in a society that was much more sympathetic and understanding about Indians issues. Moreover, many people were moving into the community from places like Hamilton, and most I would think were not privy to the old issues in the community. Yet suddenly two years ago Six Nations decides to militantly force the government to the table about issues dating back 150 years, and the way they decided to do so was to make life difficult for people in Caledonia. They set up barricades, trespass on private property, assault people, threaten assault, burn tires in the streets, dig up roads (public property), and in general antagonize and harass people from Caledonia with racist and other insulting language; when this finally frustrates enough people in the community, and they decide to make their own feelings heard, they are shouted down as "racists," told to "go back to Europe". The Canadian flag is desicrated, signs pop up with language like "KKKanada," and often referring to "genocide". So basically the Indians have pretty much negated any progress that has been made in the last 40 or 50 years, and I don't see much of a chance for things going up hill from here.

Hmmm ... just a reminder that none of the disruption to Caledonia would have occurred at all if not for the ill-advised, brutal and completely botched raid by the OPP on April 20 2006. ALL of the concerns you have identified occurred after that event. The responsibility for disruption in Caledonia lies squarely with Canada's federally appointed judge in Haldimand County, a landowner in the Haldimand Tract himself, in clear conflict of interest, abusing his court to evade the laws about the Constitutional rights of Haudenosaunee Six Nations people.

And he not only abused their land rights but their basic human rights too.

[Riverwind]

.... Canada's federally appointed judge in Haldimand County, a landowner in the Haldimand Tract himself, in clear conflict of interest, abusing his court....

Rubbish. You can't try to claim 'legal' rights and then reject a court's interpretation of those rights. If Six Nations really has a legal case they should take it to court. Six Nations lost whatever high ground they had when they resorted to violance.

This will never be resolved because too many Six Nations people are not willing to accept the possibility that most of the Haldimand Tract *was* legally surrended by 1840s. This delusion of entitlement has spread amound all aboriginals in Canada today and will lead to more conflicts and no amount of appeasement in the part of governments will satisfy their increasingly rediculous demands.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Riverwind

[kengs333]

Hmmm ... just a reminder that none of the disruption to Caledonia would have occurred at all if not for the ill-advised, brutal and completely botched raid by the OPP on April 20 2006. ALL of the concerns you have identified occurred after that event. The responsibility for disruption in Caledonia lies squarely with Canada's federally appointed judge in Haldimand County, a landowner in the Haldimand Tract himself, in clear conflict of interest, abusing his court to evade the laws about the Constitutional rights of Haudenosaunee Six Nations people.

And he not only abused their land rights but their basic human rights too.

Sorry, but the OPP has the legal authority to act in the best interest of the people of Ontario in general and maintain the peace; since Six Nations was breaking the law, whatever the OPP did to remidy the situation is perfectly just. It's the height of stupidity to argue that criminals have the right to engage in further criminal acts in reaction to the legally recognized police force of this province upholding the law because they (the criminals) feel that they shouldn't be held accountable for engaging in criminal activity. As for this tripe about "brutal" behaviour, well, of course you're going to twist the situation into it being a matter of "police brutality". By calling it such, you basically undermine what little moral high ground you guys had; the proper way would have been to comply peacefully and use the fact that you were removed from the land against your wishes as part of your PR campaign. But not many people are stupid enough to buy the lame argument of "police brutality" so I guess you lose. Now its just another one of those irrational delusions eminating from Six Nations.

[Posit]

Rubbish. You can't try to claim 'legal' rights and then reject a court's interpretation of those rights. If Six Nations really has a legal case they should take it to court. Six Nations lost whatever high ground they had when they resorted to violance.

Sure you can when you don't recognize the lower court's jurisdiction. This isn't a "legal" case. It is a sovereignty dispute. The SCoC has ruled that land claims issues do not belong in the courts and that negotiation is the only way they will be solved.

This will never be resolved because too many Six Nations people are not willing to accept the possibility that most of the Haldimand Tract *was* legally surrended by 1840s. This delusion of entitlement has spread amound all aboriginals in Canada today and will lead to more conflicts and no amount of appeasement in the part of governments will satisfy their increasingly rediculous demands.

I think you are being delusional. The 1840 surrender that the government claims was valid (and Six Nations has presented their case it wasn't) only deals with the Plank Road claim, not the entire Haldimand. The federal government has already recognized that much of the Haldimand was never surrendered. The extent of the illegal occupations is now being examined at the negotiation table. As well the feds have also acknowledged that there were improprieties with the Welland Canal claim and are set to settle that claim (including offering land in nearby Dunville) before Christmas. And lastly, the feds have also admitted that the Six Nations'trust was terribly mishandled. They were set to mark the value in the lower millions. However, in view of the BC Supreme Court ruling that interest on monies must be fair and reasonable, they will have a hard time getting out of this one under a $billion.

While it will take some time to open, examine and agree to many claims before them, Six Nations is not only in a good position but it looks like many of the claims may be settled within 5-10 years - pretty good odds given the average land claim takes 13 years each.

Now you don't have to agree with that resolve, but gladly your opinion has no bearing on how these things will be settled or how much we are on the hook for.

[kengs333]

Incidently, raz395, I find the timing of your arrive and your topics of interest a very interesting coincidence.

[raz395]

Six Nations lost whatever high ground they had when they resorted to violance.

Actually, it was the OPP, on order of the judge, that resorted to violence.

[kengs333]

The federal government has already recognized that much of the Haldimand was never surrendered. The extent of the illegal occupations is now being examined at the negotiation table.

Looks pretty surrendered to me:

http://canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/91942/00...05c8075252e93dd

[raz395]

Sorry, but the OPP has the legal authority to act in the best interest of the people of Ontario in general and maintain the peace; since Six Nations was breaking the law, whatever the OPP did to remidy the situation is perfectly just. It's the height of stupidity to argue that criminals have the right to engage in further criminal acts in reaction to the legally recognized police force of this province upholding the law because they (the criminals) feel that they shouldn't be held accountable for engaging in criminal activity. As for this tripe about "brutal" behaviour, well, of course you're going to twist the situation into it being a matter of "police brutality". By calling it such, you basically undermine what little moral high ground you guys had; the proper way would have been to comply peacefully and use the fact that you were removed from the land against your wishes as part of your PR campaign. But not many people are stupid enough to buy the lame argument of "police brutality" so I guess you lose. Now its just another one of those irrational delusions eminating from Six Nations.

Six Nations has a right to prevent development on land in dispute until the government consults and comes to agreement with them about uses of that land.

[kengs333]

Actually, it was the OPP, on order of the judge, that resorted to violence.

How often did the OPP ask the Six Nations "protesters" to leave? This "violence" that they "resorted to" is standard practice in dealing with such situations and was no different than what would happen to any group of people defying the law in a similar manner. If anything, the OPP acted with undue patients becuase the inevitable rhetoric or potential tragedy that would result given the past history of Indian protesters is unwanted. But I guess it really doesn't matter how the situation is handled, because it will just be spun as it has been; Six Nations by that point was just looking for excuses to do what it intended to do anyway. You're not fooling anyone.

[kengs333]

Six Nations has a right to prevent development on land in dispute until the government consults and comes to agreement with them about uses of that land.

Not by breaking the law they don't.

[Riverwind]

The SCoC has ruled that land claims issues do not belong in the courts and that negotiation is the only way they will be solved.

Negotiations cannot occur unless both sides have reasonable expectations. The claims of Six Nations over the entire Haldimard Tract are not reasonable which means there can be no negotiations. In any case, Canada *is* the soveriegn government and Canadian courts *do* have juristition over this issue and they will make a ruling if the parties cannot agree.

The federal government has already recognized that much of the Haldimand was never surrendered.

I doubt that. The documents I read cover 'all lands not previously surrendered'. There were some provisions in that document that left some of the land in the Brantford area in the hands of Six Nations. It is possible that some of the lands were misappropriated and will form the basis of a negotiated resolution - but those lands are a small portion of the entire tract.

Now you don't have to agree with that resolve, but gladly your opinion has no bearing on how these things will be settled or how much we are on the hook for.

My opinion on its own will not mean much but all laws are ultimately controlled by the democratic majority. If the people decide that $1 billion is too much then they will elect politicians that will pass laws that limit it to something that is reasonable. Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

How often did the OPP ask the Six Nations "protesters" to leave? This "violence" that they "resorted to" is standard practice in dealing with such situations and was no different than what would happen to any group of people defying the law in a similar manner. If anything, the OPP acted with undue patients becuase the inevitable rhetoric or potential tragedy that would result given the past history of Indian protesters is unwanted. But I guess it really doesn't matter how the situation is handled, because it will just be spun as it has been; Six Nations by that point was just looking for excuses to do what it intended to do anyway. You're not fooling anyone.

No it is not the recommended nor the legal practice. The courts order negotiations.

[raz395]

Negotiations cannot occur unless both sides have reasonable expectations. The claims of Six Nations over the entire Haldimard Tract are not reasonable which means there can be no negotiations. In any case, Canada *is* the soveriegn government and Canadian courts *do* have juristition over this issue and they will make a ruling if the parties cannot agree.

Actually it is Canada's dubious claim to the Haldimand Tract that is in question.

[Riverwind]

Actually it is Canada's dubious claim to the Haldimand Tract that is in question.

There is no question about Canadian sovereignty over the tract. The only question is whether Six Nations has some legal title under Canadian law. This is a fact that has been affirmed by every court decision related to native rights - including the recent one by the Supreme Court of BC.

[raz395]

There is no question about Canadian sovereignty over the tract. The only question is whether Six Nations has some legal title under Canadian law. This is a fact that has been affirmed by every court decision related to native rights - including the recent one by the Supreme Court of BC.

On the contrary, Canada has no claim to the tract. Developers have searched their titles all the way back and found that their titles are not clear, because there are no documents of transfer from Six Nations to the Crown in Ontario's Land Registry.

[Riverwind]

On the contrary, Canada has no claim to the tract. Developers have searched their titles all the way back and found that their titles are not clear, because there are no documents of transfer from Six Nations to the Crown in Ontario's Land Registry.

That does not mean the land was not legally surrendered. And Canadian laws still apply even if the land was not surrendered.

[Wild Bill]

Actually it is Canada's dubious claim to the Haldimand Tract that is in question.

Well, one thing's for sure! It will be a LONG time before anybody makes a deal with Six Nations again! You could take all the signatures, fingerprints and miles of videotape when signing and 20 years from now it may not matter. Another native protest group may refuse to recognize the original native signatories and start another occupation!

That's the perception Six Nations has created for itself. One can argue all they want whether or not it's deserved or unfair. It doesn't matter. Business will only make agreements when they have a reasonable expectation that they will be considered binding and under legal protection. The natives may feel that THEIR deals were not honoured in the past and that too is moot.

Any developer making a deal with Six Nations after what has been demonstrated these past two years needs his head read!

Anyone who cares to argue doesn't have to convince ME! He has to convince potential developers. Over the years it will become obvious who is right and who is mistaken.

[raz395]

Well, one thing's for sure! It will be a LONG time before anybody makes a deal with Six Nations again! You could take all the signatures, fingerprints and miles of videotape when signing and 20 years from now it may not matter. Another native protest group may refuse to recognize the original native signatories and start another occupation!

That's the perception Six Nations has created for itself. One can argue all they want whether or not it's deserved or unfair. It doesn't matter. Business will only make agreements when they have a reasonable expectation that they will be considered binding and under legal protection. The natives may feel that THEIR deals were not honoured in the past and that too is moot.

Any developer making a deal with Six Nations after what has been demonstrated these past two years needs his head read!

Anyone who cares to argue doesn't have to convince ME! He has to convince potential developers. Over the years it will become obvious who is right and who is mistaken.

Re: "signatures" There were no signatures on the surrender, Bill, just X's with names written beside them all in the same handwriting. Some of the names were of people who were not chiefs or people of responsibility either, and had no authority to be a signatory. It was a made up list. Six Nations was very clear that they would lease the land only. There was no surrender for sale.

Our governments were pretty consistent in their arrogance, for they repeated this shenanigan all across the country. Six Nations is not the only Indigenous Nation to be plagued by such illegal and fraudulent manoevres by Canada. It's a very consistent and well known pattern, known by everyone but a few, it seems.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Riverwind]

Re: "signatures" There were no signatures on the surrender, Bill, just X's with names written beside them all in the same handwriting. Some of the names were of people who were not chiefs or people of responsibility either. It was a made up list. Six Nations was very clear that they would lease the land only. There was no surrender for sale.

That is what Six Nations would like everyone to believe. However, the truth is likely something quite different. There seems to be no end to Six Nations supporters that repeat their position over and over again as if was the a matter of fact rather than opinion.

[Wild Bill]

Re: "signatures" There were no signatures on the surrender, Bill, just X's with names written beside them all in the same handwriting. Some of the names were of people who were not chiefs or people of responsibility either. It was a made up list. Six Nations was very clear that they would lease the land only. There was no surrender for sale.

I say again, who cares? My original point still stands. No one will want to lease the land either, at least not with any permanent business or structure. It would be like those cottagers winding up long term leases up near Ipperwash that have been refused new leases and kicked out. You'll only sign a lease if you have no intention of anything permanent. Like cropping off the hay from fallow farmland, maybe. Six Nations has a perception as not being a credible business partner. An outsider wanting to make a deal now feels it would be like making a deal with the regime in Sudan - subject to be broken at any time without notice.

Even if Six Nations proved every single one of their claims it doesn't matter. The perception has be pounded into the non-native head as they've watched the events unfold.

All these people will have to grow old and die before someone might give it a try. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if anyone risks development capital anywhere near the disputed areas for the next hundred years.

If the natives' intent was to protect every square inch of that land from development and to keep it farmland then I'd say they succeeded! If they want any development they'll have to raise every dime themselves. Smart business doesn't care about your politics. They simply suss you out as to possible risk.

There's no shortage of land and towns away from native claims, where you can count on a business deal being protected by law.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Wild Bill

[noahbody]

Re: "signatures" There were no signatures on the surrender, Bill, just X's with names written beside them all in the same handwriting. Some of the names were of people who were not chiefs or people of responsibility either. It was a made up list. Six Nations was very clear that they would lease the land only. There was no surrender for sale.

Are you referring to the 1844 surrender specifically or an earlier one? The 'not people of responsibility' is usually reserved for Joesph Brant. I don't see how it would be relevant in the 1844 signing as names would be evidence it was signed at a public meeting.

[raz395]

I say again, who cares? My original point still stands. No one will want to lease the land either, at least not with any permanent business or structure. It would be like those cottagers winding up long term leases up near Ipperwash that have been refused new leases and kicked out. You'll only sign a lease if you have no intention of anything permanent. Like cropping off the hay from fallow farmland, maybe. Six Nations has a perception as not being a credible business partner. An outsider wanting to make a deal now feels it would be like making a deal with the regime in Sudan - subject to be broken at any time without notice.

Your argument was sounding good until that last statement. If you really knew about the cottagers on the Bruce you would know that they have had 10 years notice, since their long term lease was not renewed. The government also had plenty of notice they were to vacate, but didn't inform the cottagers, because the government preferred to believe it was still negotiating (and it knew it didn't have a legal leg to stand on). The people didn't get proper notice from their government, perhaps, but the Indigenous Nation certainly gave our government proper notice.

The days of blaming government incompetence and ill-intention on Indigenous people should certainly end, for anyone who is informed about such circumstances.

Even if Six Nations proved every single one of their claims it doesn't matter. The perception has be pounded into the non-native head as they've watched the events unfold.

All these people will have to grow old and die before someone might give it a try. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if anyone risks development capital anywhere near the disputed areas for the next hundred years.

If the natives' intent was to protect every square inch of that land from development and to keep it farmland then I'd say they succeeded! If they want any development they'll have to raise every dime themselves. Smart business doesn't care about your politics. They simply suss you out as to possible risk.

There's no shortage of land and towns away from native claims, where you can count on a business deal being protected by law.

Perhaps it is their own development they are interested in.

[Posit]

I say again, who cares? My original point still stands. No one will want to lease the land either, at least not with any permanent business or structure. It would be like those cottagers winding up long term leases up near Ipperwash that have been refused new leases and kicked out. You'll only sign a lease if you have no intention of anything permanent. Like cropping off the hay from fallow farmland, maybe. Six Nations has a perception as not being a credible business partner. An outsider wanting to make a deal now feels it would be like making a deal with the regime in Sudan - subject to be broken at any time without notice.

Even if Six Nations proved every single one of their claims it doesn't matter. The perception has be pounded into the non-native head as they've watched the events unfold.

All these people will have to grow old and die before someone might give it a try. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if anyone risks development capital anywhere near the disputed areas for the next hundred years.

If the natives' intent was to protect every square inch of that land from development and to keep it farmland then I'd say they succeeded! If they want any development they'll have to raise every dime themselves. Smart business doesn't care about your politics. They simply suss you out as to possible risk.

There's no shortage of land and towns away from native claims, where you can count on a business deal being protected by law.

Oh Bill give up your sour grapes......

The reality is that the mainstream baby boomers are aging and natives are one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in Canada. People will buy Six nations and use Six Nations' services because there may not be anyone else to do the work...just like they have for a long time. That No tax charged is awfully attractive to a lot of people - especially those people trying to make ends meet on a fixed income. And even IF the mainstream goes against Six Nations, First Nations in Canada are on the upward in economic development opportunities. The courts are supporting aboriginal control of, or benefit from resources extracted from their lands. And First Nations are working with other First Nations to network and supply goods and services. It is a huge untapped market waiting to be harvested.

As far as cottagers go, or landowner who find their lands under claim, they really have no one to blame but themselves. A LEASE is not permanent and anyone who misunderstands that deserves absolutely no sympathy. In the case of land purchasers, proper title search is their responsibility. Now that everyone in the Haldimand Tract is on notice, they should be doing due diligence and researching title fully. However, finding your title in abeyance doesn't automatically convert to your ownership. If you are to remain, it must be a matter of negotiation - and whether they trust Six Nations or not they must accept the outcome, or move.

In the end, urban sprawl benefits no one but the greedy developers. In environmental and natural terms it is a net loss. Gawd, even the province recognizes that and require urban intensification over sprawl. They made a huge mistake designating Haldimand County as a region for growth and would have been netter to allow Richmond Hill the ability to expand into the Oak Ridges Moraine as they had originally planned. No business deal - especially development of land to which there is an aboriginal right - is protected. Even the so-called SCoC cases ruled before 1982 are open for retrial in the context of the Constitution. So if they want to take their business someplace else it is no hair off the backs or Six Nations OR the farmers and villagers who stand against development. Sure it may change the economic structure, but it will send the people away with them. And with that reduction in human pressures on farmland and the environment in the region, that is net gain.

[Wild Bill]

Your argument was sounding good until that last statement. If you really knew about the cottagers on the Bruce you would know that they have had 10 years notice, since their long term lease was not renewed. The government also had plenty of notice they were to vacate, but didn't inform the cottagers, because the government preferred to believe it was still negotiating (and it knew it didn't have a legal leg to stand on). The people didn't get proper notice from their government, perhaps, but the Indigenous Nation certainly gave our government proper notice.

The days of blaming government incompetence and ill-intention on Indigenous people should certainly end, for anyone who is informed about such circumstances.

Perhaps it is their own development they are interested in.

You still don't get it. You would make a poor politician. Perception is the reality and that's how people are going to act. The ordinary non-native doesn't know about 10 years notice. He just sees cottagers kicked out. He knows many of them may have invested sums of money into their cottages. He hears nothing about any compensation.

It doesn't matter if the natives are legally within their rights! The people who leased the land for the cottages never imagined that someday the same native band that welcomed them at the beginning would have such a change of heart and would evict them someday!

Rest assured they tell all their friends. No one wants to lease cottages from that band again.

Businesses rarely will commit to short term leases, or even long ones for that matter. They know that if the business is successful there will be unwanted costs in having eventually to relocate. So why bother locating there in the first place?

If it was your money you'd have to consider this too!

As for being interested in their own development, they might as well be! No one else is going to get involved! Let's hope they have the resources to make what they want happen. Sadly, their record has not been very good. Indian Affairs money is allocated for a water treatment plant. The local chief has control and he insists that his band be trained and given all the jobs involved with building and operating the plant. This of course really means his relatives and cronies get the jobs, contract fees and salaries. Usually they're not the best students in the training sessions either. Why should they be when their jobs are guaranteed?

So the plant gets built but it either never works well or it breaks down quickly. No real resources have been developed to properly run and maintain it. They demand the Feds give them another plant but the Feds are worried how this would look to their own voting support next election. Taxpayers have become less tolerant of waste and corruption.

Meanwhile the ordinary members of the tribe are buying bottled water.

I'm not saying this is a guaranteed scenario but it's common knowledge that it's happened too often before. Natives understandably want control on their own land of such infrastructure but complicated machinery demands well-educated maintenance. You can't play games. Look what Mr. Cable did at Walkerton, getting his job through connections so he never had to actually be well trained or pay attention to the proper procedures. The water didn't care that he had "pull" and all his pull didn't save him from the wrath of the outraged citizens of his community.

I really don't think the natives have thought this through very deeply. They can reach agreements with governments but sooner or later they may want to deal with individual people or business interests. This becomes a whole new ball game and they should not take it for granted that they only have to get a government to "cave". Other people care about their own interests and are free to "vote with their feet".

Again, don't waste your time trying to prove who's right and wrong. If you are courting public support it usually doesn't matter.

[Posit]

You still don't get it. You would make a poor politician. Perception is the reality and that's how people are going to act. The ordinary non-native doesn't know about 10 years notice. He just sees cottagers kicked out. He knows many of them may have invested sums of money into their cottages. He hears nothing about any compensation.

Perception to a schizophrenic doesn't make reality - especially for people who know which of them is the schizophrenic. When people are put under stress, their psychosis also creates a similar detachment from reality and they become highly sensitized to paranoid delusions. But you're not under stress now are you, Bill? So you must be perpetuating a false argument for a specific purpose - perhaps to profit from the fear??????

It doesn't matter if the natives are legally within their rights! The people who leased the land for the cottages never imagined that someday the same native band that welcomed them at the beginning would have such a change of heart and would evict them someday!

Another detachment from a real situation. People have to read their leases - that is why they are written down. And the government claims it did warn the cottagers at the very beginning. However I have no doubt that the cottagers felt their sense privilege would carry them through. It was bad enough that people put large investments into their properties and even worse that they would improve the cottages knowing full well (or to ought have known) that their lands were leased and all leases expire ~sometime~.

Rest assured they tell all their friends. No one wants to lease cottages from that band again.

Don't count your chickens. The land is lake shore property and some of the cottages left there and now the property of the band are pretty swank. I see a bunch of week to week cottage rentals or upscale Bed and Breakfasts on the horizon for the band. Both needed economic development and employment opportunities that non-natives looking for a reasonable vacation will flock to.

Businesses rarely will commit to short term leases, or even long ones for that matter. They know that if the business is successful there will be unwanted costs in having eventually to relocate. So why bother locating there in the first place?

If it was your money you'd have to consider this too!

It is foolish for anyone to invest in a scheme or property they know will result in a loss. Improving lease hold property equates to that loss unless a counter benefit, such as "enjoyment" or "ethereal profit" justifies the loss. In the end they lost - something the lease agreement was designed around.

As for being interested in their own development, they might as well be! No one else is going to get involved! Let's hope they have the resources to make what they want happen. Sadly, their record has not been very good. Indian Affairs money is allocated for a water treatment plant. The local chief has control and he insists that his band be trained and given all the jobs involved with building and operating the plant. This of course really means his relatives and cronies get the jobs, contract fees and salaries. Usually they're not the best students in the training sessions either. Why should they be when their jobs are guaranteed?

I realize that you are out of touch with the on-going advances made on First Nations. Why just this week there was a big conference put on in Winnipeg that brought business, economic councils, investors and band government together to make out an economic strategy and to mark the successes many enjoy. First Nations even have their own Credit Union which takes control of their banking out from under the government's eye and puts it squarely under the control of First Nations. There are hundreds of thousands of opportunities - especially in the north - that provide access to employment and business opportunities exclusively to natives, being that most of the major exploration and mining projects are situated on native territory. This is huge and I think you underestimate it. Taking control of their own governance, and projects is one of the first steps in decolonizing themselves.

So the plant gets built but it either never works well or it breaks down quickly. No real resources have been developed to properly run and maintain it. They demand the Feds give them another plant but the Feds are worried how this would look to their own voting support next election. Taxpayers have become less tolerant of waste and corruption.

Again you underestimate the capabilities of First Nation people. Once government dominance is out of the way First Nations people are capable builders and operators of anything. You do realize that Mohawk steel workers (among others) built most of New York City, including the World Trade Buildings...? Today natives occupy and have a greater desire to succeed than mainstream Canadians in every profession, vocation and trade ordinary Canadians do. Once these small success shine through there is no doubt that it will amplify success throughout aboriginal communities.

Meanwhile the ordinary members of the tribe are buying bottled water.

Mostly the result of being forcefully located on a reserve built on infertile rock, with underfunded infrastructure and an undeniably apathetic federal government constantly ignoring their fiduciary duty.

I'm not saying this is a guaranteed scenario but it's common knowledge that it's happened too often before. Natives understandably want control on their own land of such infrastructure but complicated machinery demands well-educated maintenance. You can't play games. Look what Mr. Cable did at Walkerton, getting his job through connections so he never had to actually be well trained or pay attention to the proper procedures. The water didn't care that he had "pull" and all his pull didn't save him from the wrath of the outraged citizens of his community.

I really don't think the natives have thought this through very deeply. They can reach agreements with governments but sooner or later they may want to deal with individual people or business interests. This becomes a whole new ball game and they should not take it for granted that they only have to get a government to "cave". Other people care about their own interests and are free to "vote with their feet".

...I really don't think.... an apropos statement built on the premise that you really don't know what is going on behind the scenes.

Again, don't waste your time trying to prove who's right and wrong. If you are courting public support it usually doesn't matter.

Public support doesn't matter and it is preferred by many nations to remain separate. If Canadians prefer not to buy inexpensive and quality goods from First Nations, there are plenty of markets - especially in South America, the Middle East and Africa who are more than willing to participate in free trade with First Nations. And before you poo poo that idea, it is already in place with places like Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Mexico. And the Annual Indigenous Peoples Conferences promote and network people from around the world.....but you wouldn't know that because you are interested enough in stepping beyond your limited perceptions....