Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
Yeah so the legislation was reportably done at the request of some bands in BC, the fact remains that the people protesting the legislation don't want it as they fear it's an inroad to losing their lands. To me the part where they will have an easier time leasing their land, doesn't seem that much of a problem but they still don't want it. Part of the problem is that they don't trust their leaders to make good decisions as a lot of them seem to be crooked (had to edit that as my step son just got elected to his band council). True the band leaders will still need a majority vote to lease land, but with the band leaders having too much influence in directing the vote, it's something they don't want.
|
Yeah so?? The government responds to a good idea the Chiefs bring forward and include it and you say "yeah so"?? If the people don't want it perhaps they should be more involved in elected representatives who will carry their message. They've demonstrated they can mobilize people (as in Idle No More); so do the same thing at the band level. Get rid of those that seem crooked (your word, not mine).
Quote:
As for the waterways legislation, it's one more piece of legislation that controls commercial expansion of our waterways lost. Sure provincial and local governments (including First Nations) will now be given more powers to decide but I'd trust the federal government far more not to be bought off. Here's a case where the city (Vernon) is opposing a marina but the provincial government can override them. The way I understand it, now their is one less level of government for these commercial enterprises to go through.
http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/181055641.html
|
On this I guess we will need to disagree. I believe local decisions should be made by the those closest to the situation. I think most bands (and cities) would agree, they would prefer more control in their own backyard.