Coyle Report does state, "In relation to the subject of the grievances, i.e., the need to address Six Nations’ land claims, for at least a decade Canada and Ontario have disputed their respective share of any financial liability on behalf of the Crown. Each argued in their Statements of Defence, based on different interpretations of the Canada Act, 1867, that the other is solely liable for any valid claims that arose before Confederation. Thus, each takes the position that it is confident that if the Crown is liable for wrongdoing in relation to Six Nations’ land claims it is the other government that is legally responsible... Technically, this issue does not need to be resolved until Six Nations and the Crown reach the settlement stage of negotiations. "

Please note how Mr. Coyle states the problem between the Federal & Provincial Governments doesn't need to be settled until after the settlement stage - hardly holding up the land claim as reported in most media outlets.

As we have reported the delay in Caledonia Land Claim is solely caused by the Natives. [story]

Coyle Report states, "On the jurisdictional issues raised by the ongoing protest, Canada believes that it has no constitutional authority to intervene directly because the protest is on lands that Canada considers to be private lands within the province. Similarly, policing in the province is outside Canada’s jurisdiction and Canada does not wish to be seen as interfering with the operational decisions of the police."

Group 1: The Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council

The Six Nations Confederacy is the traditional government of the Six Nations, comprising hereditary chiefs and clan mothers. In 1924, they were forcibly replaced with the current form of elected government under the Indian Act. The events of 1924, including the role of the RCMP in the removal of the Confederacy as the government Canada recognized, have led to profound and lasting divisions within the Six Nations community as to who is the legitimate government of Six Nations. At the same time, the controversy has resulted in continuing anger directed by a significant portion of the community at Canada and the elected council whom they believe Canada controls financially.

It is difficult to determine how many in the community support the Confederacy government, but it appears to be at least a significant minority. It is likely that still others within the community feel some level of support for both sets of leaders.  Voter turnout in band council elections has typically amounted to only a small minority of the eligible voters.

Group 2: Six Nations Elected Chief and Council

On March 24^th I met briefly with the elected council as a whole for the sole purpose of describing my mandate. Council welcomed my involvement. Since then, I have had a number of discussions with the elected chief, David General, and with their legal counsel, Kathleen Lickers.

The elected council has not formally supported or opposed the continuing protest. My understanding is that the elected council is divided on the issue, although they clearly seek a peaceful resolution of the protest through dialogue... On the issue of the role of the Confederacy in future discussions with Canada, the Chief indicates that the elected council is the appropriate party to conduct claims discussions, on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Isaac v. Davey... On the other hand, Chief General is comfortable with the Confederacy proposal that Canada meet with the Confederacy to explore ways of renewing and “polishing” the historic Covenant Chain relationship between Six Nations and the Crown. He indicates that it would not be appropriate for the elected council to participate in such discussions.

Group 3: The Protesters

As noted earlier, the protesters appear to be an ad hoc group of persons concerned about Six Nations’ land rights. Their main spokesperson to date has been Janie Jamieson, a member of Six Nations. I had a brief and cordial meeting with Ms. Jamieson at the building site on March 24^th in which I described my mandate and invited the group to share their views. Ms Jamieson suggested that we might hold further discussions after the Confederacy council meeting scheduled for the next day.  Nevertheless, when I returned to the site on March 26^th, Ms Jamieson was not at the site and those present indicated to me that she should be involved in any such discussions. Ms. Jamieson has declined to respond to subsequent invitations to share her views. Last weekend, I was contacted by Steven Reynolds [the Protestor have their own Lawyer - independent of the Confederacy Council and Elected Chief , a lawyer recently retained by Ms Jamieson. Mr. Reynolds indicated that he is in the process of gathering instructions and wishes to remain in communication with me...

The protesters believe that no chiefs have ever had authority to sell Six Nations land. Ms Jamieson and other protesters believe that their actions in entering the building site are consistent with directions of the traditional Great Code of the Iroquois.

On Studio 2, a few weeks ago, David Peterson stated that negotiations are being made more difficult because "the chiefs are changing daily." We have been able to confirm through the Ontario Senior Negotiator that there are many factions in the Native Bands. Although the negotiator could not understand Peterson's statement about chiefs changing daily, he did confirm the fact that every point being negotiated has to be taken back to the various band groups for them to agree on.

Mr. Coyle's report does state, "At this stage, unfortunately, the protesters have shown no interest in mediation and it is difficult to be optimistic that they would commit to mediation. "

One of Mr. Coyle's conclusion is, "Canada must confront the conflicting views of the elected council and the Confederacy as to who should participate in any negotiations on behalf of Six Nations. This will pose a serious challenge both at the beginning of any discussions and at the end, when the community will be asked to ratify any proposed settlements. The Confederacy position is clear that they expect to be the only party negotiating for Six Nations. Equally, the elected council believes that it is the legitimate government of Six Nations and should be involved... In the end, the issue of leadership is one that the Six Nations community will have to resolve internally. I understand that there has been considerable dialogue in the past about creating such independent structures accountable to both councils and to the community at large. "

After reading this we must ask how any reporter could conclude from Mr. Coyle's Report the following story: "Government spat hampers land claims".

"On March 4^th, the Confederacy Chiefs were reported to have decided that they supported the continuing protest on the lands provided that it remained peaceful and that the protesters vacate the site when required to by a court order. Later, at a press conference on March 27^th, the Confederacy Chiefs indicated that they continued to support the occupation notwithstanding the court orders described below..."

"Since March 24^th, I have been in regular communication with Ron George, an OPP Aboriginal Liaison Officer present at the site. My initial contact was prompted by a request at the Confederacy Council that I attempt to ascertain whether the police would refrain from arresting the protesters while I undertook my investigation..."

"As two recent enforcement actions in relation to native occupations show, police intervention poses a risk to human lives, both for the occupiers and the police. If the occupation ends in police intervention without any prior constructive response to Six Nations’ concerns from Canada, the atmosphere for future discussions and community consideration of settlement proposals could be jeopardized..."

"The views of the Confederacy, as expressed in the March 27 letter and press conference... the current protest should not be addressed through the criminal courts."