Idle No More founder discusses Jan. 11 and why repealing Bill C-45 should be on the table

Idle No More founder Nina Wilson speaks with APTN National News anchor Michael Hutchinson about the Jan. 11 meeting and shy repealing Bill C-45 should be on the table.

APTN National News
Idle No More founder Nina Wilson speaks with APTN National News anchor Michael Hutchinson about the Jan. 11 meeting and why repealing Bill C-45 should be on the table.

Contribute Button  

4 thoughts on “Idle No More founder discusses Jan. 11 and why repealing Bill C-45 should be on the table

  1. There is nothing wrong with bill c-45, if you take the time to study it.

    I am concerned that there may be a lot of misinformation
    being spread about the effects of C-45 in regards to environmental protection. C-45 only amends the “Navigable Waters
    Protection Act”, which has provided for protection of passage on Canada’s
    navigable waters. It does not remove any
    other legislation in force.

    Refer to Blakes’ commentary on the bill:
    http://www.blakes.com/english/view_bulletin.asp?ID=5617

    According to the bulletin, it strengthens some aspect of protection:

    “Another provision of note
    in the NPA is a prohibition on dewatering of navigable waters.
    “Dewatering” is not defined. This prohibition is not restricted to
    only those navigable waters listed in the Schedule but will apply to any
    navigable waters throughout Canada. There is a provision which allows the
    Governor in Council to order an exemption from the prohibition if such an
    exemption would be in the public interest. However, there is no approval power
    granted to the Minister in respect of such dewatering. This may prove
    problematic for major industries which currently use substantial amounts of
    water for their business. It also raises a question as to the intersection with
    provincial water laws which provide licences for water use.”

    It will make it harder for
    industry to pull water out of waterways.

    Also, the NWPA was never
    about protecting the environment, it was about protecting navigation. As per Blakes: “Other commentators have suggested the
    amendments to the NWPA, in essence, mean it is no longer an act that protects
    the environment. In reality, the NWPA is not, and has never been, a statute
    which provided for protection of the aquatic environment; rather, it provides
    for protection of navigation, over which the federal government has exclusive
    authority under Canada’s constitution. “

    The section of C-45 that amends the Indian Act
    is here:

    http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5942521&File=194#6

    Explanatory notes are under section 8 here: http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/c45/4-eng.asp

    The explanatory notes say that the changes are as a result of concerns with the current land designation regime voiced by the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and the Auditor General. The original land designation process was at the request of a First Nation back in 1988. I therefore find the claim of no consultation to be a little false in
    this case.

    It really changes what sort of meetings are required to do land designations. I don’t see what all the fuss is all about. I think people are being manipulated by Idle No More.

    This document does an excellent job of explaining the changes. It says the proposed voting amendments apply only to land designations, not land surrenders, and were done to respond to the frustrations of First Nations. So again, I see no big problem
    as is being claimed.
    http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1350676320034/1350676521625

    If you look here,
    http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1355502559608/1355502642538, it appears that
    the Minister has been doing consultations on several acts and entering into
    various new agreements. Thus I find the claim of no consultation to be false.

  2. When the US and Canada finally made their tepid, conditional endorsement to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they did so to the extent that the articles of the UNDRIP did not conflict with their laws or constitutions. Of course, there in lies the problem. Their laws violate the minimum standard for recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples that the entire world agreed should apply. The latest rounds of “anti-Indian” legislation is the best example of violating the “free, prior and informed consent” standard that runs through the Declaration. Not only should the repeal of Bill C-45 be the starting place but full compliance with the UNDRIP should also. And I mean starting place. The Declaration falls far short on issue of inherent sovereignty and the lack of any legal foundation to suggest there was ever a legal transfer of Native sovereignty to the US or Canada.

Comments are closed.