So I've been trying to determine what exactly they are protesting in regards to the changes to the Indian Act, there seems to be a lot of chatter for that being used as one of the major reasons for the protest, in addition to some of the environmental concern - but here is what I have been able to determine as far as the Indian Act changes go.
From the following
Link
Quote:
|
Idle No More spokesperson Eriel Deranger says the bill includes changing the procedures that lead up to the removal of land. Basically, she says, the amendments makes federal removal of land easier. In the past, she explains, referendums were required for land removal proposals, and the referendums had to include all members of a First Nation. Now, she says, either a meeting or a referendum must be called, and the majority vote at that meeting decides the result, no matter how few people are at the meeting. In addition, says Deranger, the Minister can call a meeting himself for the removal of land.
|
Seems pretty cut and dry according to Eriel, although I am not exactly sure I believe that a "one person meeting" would actually hold up during any sort of scurtiny. I'm also kind of skeptical at the term "land removal". Does that mean giving away of land?
However, here is a slightly different take on this: Link
Quote:
|
Manny Jules has spent a whole lifetime listening to complaints. He was a chief, his father was a chief and his grandfather was a First Nations band councillor for three decades.
He remembers his father saying back in 1968 that First Nations communities “have to be able to move at the speed of business,” including and especially when it comes to leasing reserve lands ripe for economic growth. Complaints about the onerous and convoluted leasing process — which, thanks to the Indian Act, can take years and cost thousands in lawyering — persisted throughout his own tenure as a chief and, nearly 40 years on, right up until today.
As recently as mid-December, Mr. Jules and several chiefs voiced their own disdain for the way the Indian Act governs land leasing, asking Parliament to get rid of certain provisions that add months, if not years, of delay.
The Harper government heeded those calls and streamlined the process, but instead of garnering praise or even getting by with apathy, Ottawa was met with uproar and threats.
|
Oh, you mean the language is actually about land leasing and not "removal".
Now, I can attest to the amount of roadblocks that there are with the Aboriginal land leasing process. I know the Sik Sika nation was trying to sign a deal with a major retailer to have one of their Warehouses built on their land. The deal ultimately fell through because of the land leasing procedures.
So overall, I'm really not sure that using this reason is really a valid concern for the protesters.