Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
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
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
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. |
From my understanding under the new bills it would force a referendum from the band on land deals in terms of selling or leasing, it would remove that power from the Band Council and put it in the hands of the citizens.
Its the same as the environmental changes, where the Natives contend that it would remove consultation in terms of the use of resources and waterways which if you really take a look at the Bills I think C-38 and C-45 is really not true.
I think what's really oderous to the Chiefs is the transparency requirements where they need to publish their salaries on the web for the last 5 years, and putting some power in terms of land use back in the hands of the people.