Either I did not convey my ideas clearly, or you can't read.

What I was trying to illustrate was two options:

1. Offering money to resettle, OPTIONALLY, sure. That's great. I don't think all of them would take you up on that offer, but some would appreciate it.

2. Deciding unilaterally that the problem could be solved by throwing money at it and expecting the entire community to uproot, no, not cool.

I'm not sure if you were trying to discuss a solution which would "remove" the entire FN communities, thus negating the desire to fund infrastructure for access? Or were you simply suggesting that offering funds for willing volunteers to resettle would reduce the number of residents in each community, and subsequent to that, it would be ok to say "alright, you didn't take our option, you're on your own."

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't think either of the two options above is a viable long-term solution. Just my opinion.

If I was in some sort of position where I was actually making decisions, I'd go for the obvious solution that has both social and economic benefits: build the road into the communities and the Ring, and let the eventual tax dollars on mining fund it all. And then have tax dollars left over afterwards to benefit all Canadians.

But I'm just an armchair general, and I don't get to make decisions.