Chauncey posted a quote earlier:
"On June 30, 2011 the Greenstone Economic Development Corporation ("GEDC") and CCC filed a proposal with PPP Canada in response to its Round 3 Request for Proposals, suggesting a loan guarantee for the last 25% of the estimated cost of constructing the railroad would lower the project's funding costs. The proposal outlined a long term plan for the First Nations of the James Bay Lowlands to be vested with ownership of the railroad in consideration of their consent to its construction within their traditional lands."

I replied that it was just a proposal. They want and hope that their proposal will be recognized and accepted. That proposal of rail ownership is based on a false proposition, i.e. traditional lands = ownership. I do not know much about property or claim rights in Ontario even though am a resident of same. Any lawyers reading this?

I presume no one questions that natives own their reserve lands. Also no one questions that KWG owns rights to minerals on their claims.

What I question ( correct me IF I'm wrong) is that the so called native 'traditional lands' are not owned by them but may have some use of them.
If one builds a road or rail line on such land it interferes little with the whole surface, merely uses a narrow strip. So most of the hype about contaminating land, destroying wild life etc. is just plain exaggerated Hype.

Similarly KWG while having mineral rights do not own the land on those claims. Anyone can buy that land, should it become available, and build a hut or house on it. Then could even say to KWG that you are entitled to one but not to another on MY property and if you are desperate for something then pay for it. In other words the property owner has a say as to whether someone can trespass on it.

Where KWG has a point with their claims, as long as the land is not owned. They have a say as to whether anyone can interfere with their desire to explore and develop the mineral rights therein. Perhaps they also have a first opportunity to buy any of the land on their claims. After all one has to build some facilities on the claim for a mine. That accomodation has to be made or show just cause for not.

Again, I say ownership belongs with those who fund the project. The governments and Cliffs are the natural ones because they are the most likely large contributors to the costs.

My guess is that natives, unions and similar are mostly contributing with consenting voices but little in terms of significant monetary clout.

I post these opinions for debate and opportunity to enlighten me should my assumptions be out to lunch. Hope this discussion helps others to understand also.

Thanks in advance to all posters. Ed.