Bill c 45 and idle no more

Bill C-45 and Idle No More

Dr. Trent Keough, 14 February 2013

Bill C-45 will likely be remembered for inciting the Idle No More protest
movement. Bill C-45 was given Royal Assent on December 14, 2012 and is now
the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.i The Act seeks to further the implementation of the
March 2012 Budget. The Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 brings changes to some 64
pieces of discriminate legislation tied directly to the fulfillment of the federal
government‘s Action Plan.ii Government‘s strategy for parliamentary expediency,
i.e. using an omnibus bill, has inspired nation-wide travel disruption resulting in
untold personal inconvenience, work stoppage, and corresponding losses of
revenue and income. These results hardly fit with an economic action plan
benefiting Canadians. Idle No More is also presenting its own unintended results.iii
The movement is eroding support for Aboriginal issues and is presenting evidence
of ongoing fracturing of Aboriginal leadership. Idle No More raises questions
regarding the legitimacy of leadership and the authenticity of intention.

Idle No More was/is primarily concerned with a lack of consultation on
legislative changes to the Indian Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the
Environmental Assessment Act.iv Not all legislative change in Bill C-45was
rejected by Aboriginal leaders. There was dialogue and consultation with First
Nations and Canadians outside of parliament. There was some concurrence, too.
When speaking of legislative change identified for inspiring Canada‘s economic
growth Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, Assembly of First Nations National Chief, said:
―‗We struggle under layer upon layer of wasteful bureaucratic interference, useless
and expensive controls are piled upon our people – squandering tax dollars and
frustrating change. Now, we must turn this around . . . .‘‖v The National Chief of
was literally calling for change, and change did happen.vi

How much consultation is enough or adequate? Who legitimately speaks for
Aboriginals when there is clear division and growing resentment between the
Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and the various
Métis nations?vii The division between the groups can be relegated to two areas of
question: who has rightful access to federal cash and who is entitled to indigenous
land rights? Some changes in Bill C-45were welcomed by First Nations‘
leadership, at least initially. There is little evidence of government‘s attempting to
exhaust consultation on Bill C-45. The expectation is genuinely insincere to begin

1

with. Exhaustive consultation resulting in global contentment is impossible due to
competing interests. Regret and disagreement are anticipated in democratic
processes. When is social protest an acceptable consequence of expressing regret?

Bill C-45 was used to initiate change without parliamentary delay. It was a
demonstration of government‘s legislative power.viii The opposition parties moaned
about government‘s unwillingness to change to their positions: ―‗[The
Conservatives] have not accepted any amendments. They've not accepted any
suggestions. They've not accepted any improvements. They've made no changes. . .
. .‘ [Interim Liberal Leader, Bob Rae,] said. . . . Despite hundreds of amendments
introduced by the opposition parties . . . every single amendment was voted down
by government MPs.‖ix With the power of elected majority in the House of
Commons, the Conservative government did not feel obliged to negotiate for a
prerogative to decide. Government‘s privilege to decide for Canadians was
determined by prior democratic process. Not surprisingly, some Canadians are
questioning the obligation of government to respond to Idle No More protest
groups. These groups are perceived to have no national mandate other than the
civil right to protest. The historical exclusion of Aboriginals from Canada‘s
legislative processes is considered irrelevant, if it is considered at all.

Not everyone is happy with what occurred in Bill C-45. Idle No More arises
from the federal government‘s strategy not to engage in extensive dialogue or to
compromise within and outside of parliament. Whenever there is inadequate
communication there is resulting supposition and innuendo. Propagation of these
two leads to expression of fear, anger, irrational behavior, violence and protest
movements. The general public‘s ignorance of the Bill C-45‘s contents is not,
however, just the result of poor consultation on its subject-matter. Where there is
refusal to dialogue there is also corresponding evidence of interpretative error,
intentional misdirection, as well as unintended and unforeseen consequences.
There is miscommunication associated with Bill C-45‘s changes to specific pieces
of legislation, particularly as it relates to Aboriginal issues. Inaccuracy and bias
inform part of the general public‘s ‗awareness‘ of the issues raised with Bill C-45.

The general public responds negatively and positively to the Idle No More
protests. Neither the public nor the protesters share foundational knowledge of Bill
C-45. There is no universal understanding of specific reasons for why Aboriginal
objections exist. Even supporters of Bill C-45 are oftentimes incorrect in assuming
what the legislation does. The issues affiliated with Idle No More are emotionally
charged and rife with human rights violations, political embarrassments and
longstanding grievances. These issues are always cast in the troublesome shadows

2

of the Indian Act and administrative practices of the federal Department of
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

As Canadians, Idle No More should lead us to ask startling questions of our
selves. Why are Canadians expressing sympathy/antipathy for Idle No More? What
will be the unintended consequences of Bill C-45?x The answers to these questions
are not always flattering. The questions force us to decide on what will be the tone,
tenor and direction of the relationship between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in
our country. Circumstance has presented us with events demonstrating a shifting in
the expression of Aboriginal public consciousness in mainstream Canadian society.
There are emerging changes in the Canadian public‘s attitudes to the authenticity
of Aboriginal leadership and claims to that privileged identity. What is otherwise a
silent structural intolerance of Aboriginals is beginning to elicit a vocal, social
response from Aboriginals. How long will it take non-Aboriginals to respond in-
kind and publically own their intolerance? How long will it take for open
discussion to define the reasons for the indifference Canadians have for Aboriginal
issues? What dangers and benefits will these discussions and statements of
ownership bring to us as a nation?

The ‗us‘, however, assumes an identifiable Canadian ‗people‘ with defining
values, customs and history. These are the imaginary Canadians defined only in the
foreigner minds of Americans and Europeans. These cultural Canadians are also
occasionally figured by Canadians travelling abroad as means to inter-cultural
expediency. Who are these ‗Canadians‘ in relation to Canadian Aboriginals?
Answering this question is not as simple as posing an ‗us‘ set in opposition to an
Aboriginal-them or vice versa. Both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals are aligned
with the us-and-them groups. There is growing dissatisfaction within and outside
of Aboriginal groups with government policy sustaining welfare cultures on Indian
reservations. There is shared anger over further incursion of the federal
government into Indian reservation management and decision-making. Bill C-27,
now the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, will bring a new level of
transparency and accountability to reservation management, but at whose expense?

Bill C-27 also enables the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada to lead key decision-making on reserves, not the Band
Councils elected by their constituencies. There are 21st century evocations of the
‗Indian Agent‘ here. People on both sides welcome and reject this change in
decision-making power. Other dramatic changes are also taking place contiguous
to Bill C-45. Métis and non-Status Indian entitlement to equivalent treaty rights as

3

‗Indians‘ under the Canadian Constitution will erode the financial benefits of
Treaty Indian status.xi

The recent federal court decision recognizing that Métis
and non-status Indians in Canada are "Indians" under the
Constitution Act could put a financial squeeze on the
government, some experts say. . . . ‗Theoretically it's
billions and billions of dollars,‘ Robert Lovelace, a
global development studies professor at Queen's
University in Kingston, Ont., and retired Ardoch
Algonquin First Nations chief, told CBC News. . . . .
‗There's always been concern that there's not enough
money to go around, so if you add people to the pot, the
meal's going to get thinner. I hope that can be overcome,‘
Lovelace said.xii

Idle No More also suggests that First Nations‘ ownership of indigenous
privilege once protected by treaty is in serious danger.xiii It was Bill C-31 (1985),
an amendment to the Indian Act, that returned some one hundred thousand persons
back to their Indian Status. It did not, however, herald the cessation of so-called
Indian emancipation, i.e. assimilation policies. Bill C-31 was named the ‗Abocide
Bill.‘ Aboriginal leaders anticipated that its change would lead to the elimination
of Treaty Indian Status. Harry W. Daniels said that Bill C-31 would ―accelerate
the extermination policies—the integration of Canada‘s Indian population into
mainstream society—that have always been at the heart of the federal Indian Act
regime.‖xiv

Daniels was identifying a form of systemic racism built into federal
government policy and bureaucratic systems, specifically those used for naming
Status Indians. It is doubtful if government officials will admit it, but the federal
government‘s losing the recent court case isn‘t the strategic loss it first appears to
be. While the Federal Court did not assign a financial obligation to the
Constitutional Indian status of Métis and non-Treaty Indians, the government will
eventually comply with meeting its financial obligations. This funding will be at
the expense of current and future Treaty Indians.

The complete loss of funding to reservation Indians is only a matter of
timing. Popular intolerance for stylized Aboriginal welfare cultures will strengthen
government‘s counter position into the future. There will be ensuing arduous
debate over Canada‘s historical obligations to Indians. Images of impoverished

4

children and wasting seniors will emotionalize and charge the political
environment but not win over sympathy for increased taxation. Government will
be empowered by Canadians to end Indian welfare culture.

Erosion of Treaty Indian status is part of the conditioning of Canadians to
become insensitive and intolerant to preferential status and financial benefits given
to Treaty Indian status. In the recent federal court case, First Nations have
effectively been co-opted (first by use of federal legislation defining Aboriginal
status, e.g. Bill-31), into a social group in which they will have eventual minority
status. Treaty privilege is being eroded by First Nation assimilation into an
‗Aboriginal‘ status dominated by Métis and non-Status Indians. If money logically
follows people, then we automatically see who will receive the lion‘s share of
federal dollars into the future. The movement to make Treaty Indians a minority
within the definition of Aboriginal is tied to the strategy of reducing monies to
reservations. In 2004 when Tom Flanagan was a political advisor to Stephen
Harper‘s government he advanced a new assimilation theory: reduce the amount of
money going to reservations.xv We see that this strategy is actually being realized
in the contemporary.

When the Métis and the non-Status Indian population exceed the
government‘s financial ability, and/or the public‘s willingness, to sustain ongoing
financial support, the end of the Indian Act era will occur. Is this assimilation by
Aboriginal status really a conscious strategy or a series of un/fortunate,
un/intended, or portentous events? Are we giving circumstance a conspiracy
theory? Commentators, Aboriginal and not, have said that elimination of Treaties
and Treaty Indian status is an objective of the federal government; government
consistently denies it. It is not ironic that the Federal Court‘s decision to extend
‗Indian‘ status to Métis and non-status Indians is in compliance with recognition of
hyphenated cultural existence in Canada, e.g. African-Canadian, Italian-Canadian,
Aboriginal-Canadian, Indian-Métis, Indian-First Nations.

Hyphenated or attenuated social identity is today foundational in Canadian
cultural consciousness. Hyphenation was however a strategy of Canadian
multiculturalism to rid Canada of its ‗Indian issue.‘ Multiculturalism is
assimilation by acknowledgement of equality, not unique status, created by
acceptance of diversity as a nation building principle.xvi This focus on equality not
distinction is a critical assumption in Canadian nation building policy and
legislation since 1972. Within this historical strategy for developing a Canadian
national consciousness there is nothing perceptually wrong with Métis and non-

5

Status Indians being referred to as ‗Indians‘ under constitutional law. Each already
holds the status of being (named in legislation) an Aboriginal people.

By further collapsing the unique distinction of First Nations peoples from
Métis peoples, i.e. avoiding the indigenous designation and timeline arguments for
and against First Aboriginal peoples, the federal government laid the pathway for
the federal court to determine that Métis and Non-Status Indians have equivalent if
not equal constitutional rights afforded to Treaty Indians. We have arrived at a
long-awaited climatic end-result anticipated in multiculturalism: there is no one
unique indigenous people in Canada identified by the label ‗Indian.‘ The legitimate
right of First Nations to claim charter Canadian status is ‗forever‘ denied.

If our progress forward is as contorted and as seemingly conspiratorial as it
appears, there is a social problem with ethical, legal and moral consequences
evident in our country. Canadians and Aboriginals want greater transparency. Both
groups seek increased honesty in expression of the others‘ intentions. Aboriginals
and Canadians want evidence of respect in policy framework development. They
expect honesty in the administrative practices of the federal government and
Aboriginal administrations. Yet, both the federal government and Idle No More
activists fail to demonstrate clarity of purpose in their actions and remain reluctant
to speak of true agendas.xvii

Not surprisingly some ‗Canadians‘ and some Aboriginals are confused about
the dissatisfaction with the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. There is mixed messaging
from Aboriginal groups and their leaders on both the Act and the Idle No More
protest movement.xviii Is the Idle No More movement highlighting failed
Aboriginal leadership? Is Idle No More simply a manifestation of Aboriginal social
anomie? Neither Bill C-45 nor the Idle No More protest movement has singular
coherence; yet, there is written clarity of purpose in both. Bill C-45 was proposed
to ―implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29,
2012 and other measures.‖xix Idle No More‘s mission statement calls: ―on all
people to join in a revolution which honors and fulfils Indigenous sovereignty
which protects the land and water.‖ xxIdle No More vehemently claims Bill C-45
erodes ―indigenous rights.‖xxi

The romanticized notion of indigenous sovereignty protecting land and
water likely belongs to an era when ‗Aboriginal‘ peoples didn‘t litter, pollute or
cause harm to the environment in any way. Indigenous sovereignty presupposes
Canadian Indians won‘t ever litter, pollute or mismanage natural resources in the
contemporary, too. It‘s a difficult image to reconcile with the reality of litter, burnt

6

tires, and garbage left at some blockade sites. Nature conservation and
environmental protection is not what makes indigenous governance on reservations
so uniquely identifiable throughout Canada. Use of the term indigenous is also
problematic as it points to a difference between Aboriginal peoples based on their
being either autochthonous First Nations or ‗landed‘ Métis.xxii

We shouldn‘t be too harsh when criticizing Idle No More for an expression
of idealism first popularized in a white man‘s myth of the noble savage living
wholesomely off the land. After all white man‘s welfare system has assumed the
responsibility for Aboriginal self-reflection-- as cultures and as individuals.
Without personal accountability there can be no authentic social consciousness.xxiii
How can our non-Aboriginal ears be opened to the possibilities of indigenous
sovereignty, if it indeed exists, when Canadians have so depreciated the value of
Aboriginal cultural contribution to nationhood? The federal government also has a
grossly exaggerated self-image and self-confidence. It has unbridled expectations
for its legislative capacity to orchestrate positive economic change. The federal
government believes in its own capacity to lead First Nation communities when
competent First Nations leaders have themselves failed.

Neither Idle No More, the Indian Act, nor individual treaty rights give any
Aboriginal group a sovereignty position in Canada, Neither protects rights
identified with achievement of a sovereignty position. And, neither Act nor treaty
rights anticipate geo-political sovereignty; in fact, they preclude discussion of this
positioning by restriction of decision-making and administrative powers. Let us be
clear. There is no nation here but that of Canada. To claim otherwise is to be
delusional. Aboriginal sovereignty is a matter political posturing serving an
unending frustration. First Nations ‗claims to ‗first nationhood‘ are a response to
federal government assimilation strategies, and denial of Charter Canadian status.
Consequently, Bill-C45 also needs some accounting in the historical frustrations of
the desire for wholesale amendments to the Indian Act.xxiv

The Indian Act’s original intention was eventual extinction of Indians while
living on their respective reservations. Expectations for reservation genocide had to
later give way to hope for off-reserve assimilation. Getting rid of Treaty Rights has
proven historically difficult, if not impossible for the federal government. Federal
politicians, and most recently with Aboriginal leadership support, have been
chipping at the Indian Act in a piecemeal fashion. Bill C-45 is a minor reflection of
this larger activity. It also serves as a contemporary flashpoint highlighting it.

7

Changes to the Indian Act in C-45 came about, at least in part, because of
consultation with Aboriginal leaders: ―Even the lawyer representing the Assembly
of First Nations cautiously endorsed the substance of the amendments while
opposing their passage, saying there hadn‘t been adequate consultation with first
nations.‖xxv Lack of consultation is also a key theme in the Idle No More
movement and a mantra for those participating in it. The average Canadian might
legitimately come to ask, ‗Who speaks for Aboriginal peoples in Canada? And, if
consultation is the equivalent of inclusion, guess what? Canadians might not have
been adequately consulted either.‘

Changes to the Indian Act in Bill C-45 are intended to expedite the ability of
reserves to lease lands. They also increase the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development Canada‘s ability to use majority decision-making at
possible odds with Band Council preferences:

The amendments would allow First Nations
communities to approve a land designation by a
majority of votes from those in attendance instead
of waiting for a majority from all eligible voters, in
essence putting the onus on First Nations to show up
to vote at meetings or referendums. . . . The
aboriginal affairs minister would be given the
authority to call a band meeting or referendum for
the purpose of considering an absolute surrender of
the band's territory, and to accept or refuse the land
designation after receiving a resolution from the
band council.xxvi

Ironically we can attribute the land lease option changes in C-45 to successful golf
course building, casino complexes, and vineyard developments on Aboriginal
lands. These are signals to economic action and plans for more. Bill C-45‘s
‗wholesale‘ change to the Indian Act flows directly from the successful negotiation
of previous change based on sectoral interests of localized Bands, like those found
in the: First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA), First Nations Fiscal and
Statistical Management Act (FNFSMA), First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys
Management Act (FNOGMMA), and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial
Development Act (FNCIDA).

Who says the Indian Act can‘t be changed or impacted to suit the local
interests of Aboriginals without a national consultation with all Aboriginals? Once

8

the volume of the sector and band agreements bury the Indian Act by volume of
negotiated exception it will become impossible to uniformly apply it. The Indian
Act will become ceremonial and archaic much like the Canadian Queen in whose
name original Treaties were signed. But should we even dare propose that these
Acts will assimilate the Indian Act? The question arises as to which Treaty holders,
Bands or special interest groups, outside of representatives of the Assembly of
First Nations, were at the table with the federal government when the newest
changes to the Indian Act were proposed? Métis weren‘t there (?) as outside of
Alberta they have no land status.

Some First Nations groups are clearly unhappy by what gets negotiated
away in the process of amendment by rule as opposed to exception.xxvii Part of the
argument for protest because of lack of consultation gets reduced to absurdity in
consideration of Idle No More‘s issue with the Navigation Protection Act. Changes
to navigational regulations seem to have disproportionate impact, if not an
exaggerated one, on Aboriginal use of Canada‘s local waterways. Bill C-45
renames the Navigable Waters Protection Act governing all bodies of water to the
Navigation Protection Act governing but (a mere!) three oceans, 97 lakes and 62
rivers.

Changes to the Navigation Protection Act are being widely misrepresented:
―Under the act, major pipeline and power line project advocates aren't required to
prove their project won't damage or destroy a navigable waterway it crosses, unless
the waterway is on a list prepared by the transportation minister. Idle No More
claims the amendments remove that protection for 99.9 per cent of lakes and rivers
in Canada.‖xxviii Claims that pipeline and water power projects are without
environmental accountabilities and that 99.9% of Canadian waterways are
unprotected from abuse are as alarmist as they are fatuous, erroneous. It‘s a
Chicken Little statement that is fast becoming urban legend/fact. Why such blatant
misrepresentation of fact? Well, the threat to waterway conservation was first
brought forward by members of the opposition parties in the House of Commons.
And, they have never been known for use of exaggeration, slanted focus or
rhetorical filibuster to gain media attention! The misstatement has become a media
sound bite, albeit a false one.

The newly named Act does not replace the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999 or provincial or territorial environmental protection
legislations. No one is able to alter the course, destroy or negatively impact an
otherwise navigable waterway (or even one not navigable) without sanction of
authority from the appropriate province or territory and/or Government of Canada.

9

Individuals or corporations choosing to act outside of compliance are subject to
penalty and /or criminal charges. Nothing has changed yet we are led to think the
sky is falling.

Outside of the newly designated federally monitored waterway jurisdictions,
the Act no longer applies in some environmental assessment impact statements and
consultations. Think of the difference between the environmental protection and
navigation Acts‘ jurisdictions as rules for building bridges over navigable
waterways and rules for the pipeline industry‘s traversing a now federally excluded
river. Recent changes to the Navigation Protection Act could exempt certain
―pipelines and interprovincial power lines [or parts thereof]. . . so that
environmental assessment hearings for them would not have to consider whether
they would affect or interfere with [navigation in a specific body of] . . . water in
Canada. Pipelines and power lines will [however] continue to be subject to other
federal and provincial approvals protecting waterways.‖xxix The Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999 as well as local legislation remains in effect,
as appropriate. To say that Bill C-45 eliminated environmental responsibility for
watercourse management is irresponsible and incorrect.

Why is the public being misled? Well, let‘s be clear on answering this
question; there is no expressed intention to mislead or evidence of anyone
choosing to lie directly. Here there is simply evidence of a lack of due diligence
and failure to investigate for factual detail. People want to believe the negative;
and they assume decisions were made with ulterior motives in mind. There‘s a
whole culture of suspicion and mistrust defining the government‘s relationship
with Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Adjacent to the culture of mistrust is a growing
culture of disrespect, derision and historical discrimination. Unknowingly, both the
Idle no More and Bill C-45 are directly contributing to the growth of these two
very ugly cultures.

Some Aboriginal communities want change to the Indian Act while others
do not. Some individuals like to dissent and blame while others do not. Some lead
by expression of suspicion, hatred and unbridled emotion. Others lead by balanced
care, reason and intellect. Some attack challenges directly with ethics grounded in
personal/social responsibility. Others approach challenges as bandits only can.
Perhaps they have been denied historical empowerment. These people have been
designated as historically lesser ‗others.‘ They form and define cultural value
propositions incidentally and accumulatively. Ultimately, they prevail on the
premise of justice deserved, and finally served. Initially they are perceived as being

10

selfish for use of disruptive strategies, the unexpected blind-side, the hit-and-hide,
the skirmish. Who are these people? Are they the Idle No More?

Canada‘s assimilation policy for Aboriginals is grounded in the rationalism
of the Indian Act. The Act is cold, self-serving, calculated and disrespectful of
Aboriginals. The Act’s assimilation agenda sits beneath the ruse of respecting
honorable treaties which were unfortunately made in bad faith. After more than
150 years, Idle No More has decided to change the rules of Aboriginal
engagement. Who can blame them? Acceptance of lot and tolerance for
discrimination has its human limits. Perhaps revolution is the only logical way out?
There is the other side, regardless of however it reflects one side‘s bad behavior.

Bill C-45 is the federal government‘s attempt to change expectations for
Aboriginal reserve leadership and simultaneously curb dependency on reserves.
The federal government needs to become blunt about its covert agenda as it once
did with the White Paper in1969. At that time and increasingly thereafter the
federal government lost its verve for speaking truthfully about its expectations for
Aboriginals. This silence on intention is attributable to: a) belief in the assimilation
strategy embedded in the multicultural policies shared by successive Canadian
governments since the 1970s, b) fear of voter reprisal for owning the social shame
originating with government‘s human rights transgressions and structural
discrimination against Indians, and c) the political correctness of not addressing the
failure of multiculturalism to define the nation. Today, however, the federal
government is being sensitive and responsive to the simmering resentment against
using taxpayer money to pay reserve welfare bums. An ironic twist to
multiculturalism is an emerging unwillingness to accommodate stereotypes of
Aboriginal difference based on social dependency.

Canadians will respect Aboriginal difference mirrored in their national
diversity but they are no longer willing to permit tax dollars to pay for those
distinctions. Aboriginals are free to become whoever they desire to be, but
Canadians are no longer tolerant of paying for that search for identify. No social
group, however distinct in its varying cultures, deserves receiving more than 150
years of welfare payments, regardless of the implied purpose of that welfare
assistance, without a social review of outcomes achieved to date. Neither
Canadians nor Aboriginals are happy with these outcomes. A distinction, however,
is that some Canadians and some Aboriginals wish to continue with the existing
process of paying for welfare maintenance versus movement to economic
engagement.

11

As the historical English and French elites, the so-called charter Canadians,
increasingly become minority Canadians there‘s less and less sympathy for
historical grievances and wrongs committed by these groups in the early settlement
activities of the nation. Aboriginal discrimination is institutionalized in Canada‘s
political system and it will readily absorb any social intolerance for Aboriginal
privilege or distinction. The Idle No More social protests will bring these
sentiments further into the open of Canadian socio-political consciousness.

Hyphenated-Canadians and Aboriginal-Canadians are weary of talking about
not being what each wants and tells the other to become: that is, to be genuinely
responsible. Hyphenated-Canadians do not want ongoing financial, social or moral
responsibility for the well-being of Aboriginal-Canadians, let alone sovereign First
Nations operating within the borders of Canada. Canadians have been shouting
through legislation and governance practices: We don’t care! We will not change
for you! You are a social and cultural deficit to the nation! In witnessing the Idle
No More movement we can see there is a visceral, public acknowledgement of
abdication of responsibility emerging before our very eyes. Thankfully,
Aboriginals are responding back, too: We know you don’t care! We recognize you
have never cared! You will never care!xxx

Now that we‘ve said the dreadful ‗it‘ publically to each other, what do we do
next? We have to act. We can start by acting like responsible human beings, not
hyphenated caricatures.

i
In this essay I use Bill C-45 to reference the Act in its Bill and current formats. While the Act isn’t the Bill, most
Canadians know the Bill.
ii
http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/blog, 20 January 2013. Canada’s Economic Action Plan is an
indirect cause of the Idle No More protest movement.
iii
Canadians are also seeing that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Metis
nations are eclipsing the Asembly of First Nations as the voice for Aboriginal
leadership in Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/08/pol-cp-metis-indians-federal-
court-challenge.html
23 January 2013

iv
This focus is not meant to be exhaustive. But concern for these changes is shared
by other Aboriginal organizations. Don MacKenzie, Director of Intergovernmental
Affairs with the Mi'kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I. , says, ―‘We are very concerned.
Changes are being made to legislation affecting matters such as reserve lands,
waterways, the environment, the fishery and the Indian Act. They are matters that

12

go to the heart of aboriginal and treaty rights.‘" http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-
edward-island/story/2012/12/14/pei-first-nations-protest-bill-584.html 20 January 2013

v
http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/r2d-dr2/what-responsible-resource-development, 20 January
2013.

vi
All Bill C-45 changes were intended to reduce costs to government, cut red tape,
unblock reserve administrators‘ decision-making, streamline environmental
approvals, and create economic opportunities for growth. Certain of the changes
were mere house cleaning and normal legislative upkeep activities. Other changes
were intended to eliminate regulatory bottlenecks slowing economic growth. It is
also clear that some of these legislative changes were made in favor of resource
based industries.
vii
―The [Assembly of first Nations] AFN, which claims to speak for all aboriginal
Canadians, is a collection of chiefs from the more than 630 First Nations
communities in Canada. But well over 50 per cent of aboriginal Canadians don't
live on reserves, and according to [the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples] CAP, their
interests are not adequately represented by the AFN. In addition, the vast bulk of
the $9 billion that the federal government spends annually on aboriginal programs
and services goes to the reserves, another bone of contention between the two
groups.‖ http://ca.news.yahoo.com/patrick-brazeau-anatomy-senate-appointment-
085556765.html 14 February 2013

viii
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/05/pol-tempers-flare-omnibus-budget-bill.html 21 January
2013.
ix
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/05/pol-tempers-flare-omnibus-budget-bill.html 21 January
2013.
x
Are we behaving responsibly as government (e.g. inadequate consultation) and as
democratic citizens (e.g. disruptive behavior)? What is the individual‘s
responsibility to understand the facts inspiring social upheaval associated with Idle
No More, but not directly a part of it? How many people inspired by Idle No More
activism have actually read the 444 pages of the Act? How many non-Aboriginal
Canadians can connect Idle No More to Canada’s Economic Action Plan? How
many Canadians whose lives have been disrupted by Idle No More protests
understand its historical origins in the original Indian Act? How many
unknowingly support the Idle No More indigenous sovereignty agenda? Are
Canadians sympathetic to Aboriginal issues equally supportive of claims for
Aboriginal sovereignty? Who of us fully comprehends the broader political

13

implications of the confused and complicated social dialogue unfolding before us?
What are we doing to locate the Idle No More protests into the context of ongoing
Aboriginal disenfranchisement? What are we doing to identify the weight given to
Idle No More by its adjacencies, i.e. hunger strikes, Federal Court decisions,
accountability legislation, etc., ? Are we approaching a seminal, shoe- dropping
moment in the history of Aboriginal relations in Canada? How will these Idle No
More protests resonate into the future of Canada? How has Idle No More advanced
the mis/understanding of the challenges facing Aboriginal peoples and
communities in Canada? Are we to witness an Aboriginal revolution and the birth
of true Aboriginal nationhood in Canada?
xi
The
contemporary version of the Indian Act of 1867: Bill C-31, An Act to Amend
the Indian Act (1985): fails to address real cultural differences among First Nations
peoples by classifying them as being Aboriginal. Further, Bill C-31 fails to
recognize the ethno- cultural differences reflected in the Indigenous status of both
Treaty and non-Treaty Indians, and it does not differentiate Indians from
Aboriginal Métis. Métis are original to the country of Canada, but they are not
indigenous to the land Canada now occupies. To use Aboriginal to refer to Indians
and Métis is to deny the privilege of both charter and Indigenous status to Indians,
as the one true ‗original‘ peoples of the lands claimed under British imperialism
later becoming Canada.

xii
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/09/f-metis-non-status-decision-costs.html 22 January 2013.

xiii
Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, who is former national chief of the
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, [says] . . . that the court's decision and the Idle No
More protest movement are part of a national discussion he sees as an opportunity.
. . . "‗Whether it's appealed or not, it will be a negotiations process between non-
status organizations and Métis organizations with the federal government," he said.
Again, it's all part of an ongoing dialogue that's taking place.‘"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/08/pol-cp-metis-indians-federal-court-
challenge.html 22 January 2013.

xiv
(Daniels) “Bill C31: The Abocide Bill‖

xv
―[In 2005] Harper himself had not said much about where he stood on the
reserve versus the non-reserve question. But his senior policy adviser and former
14

campaign chairman, Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of
Calgary, had said a great deal in 2000 in a controversial book called First Nations?
Second Thoughts. . . . According to [Tom] Flanagan, [a senior Aboriginal Advisor
to the Harper government] the reserve system [is] . . . ‗anomalous and
dysfunctional.‘" He believes that the only way of getting rid of reserves is to starve
their inhabitants and administrations of cash. In First Nations? Second Thoughts
(2000) Flanagan states that giving reserves more money ―‘would encourage
unsustainable growth in the number of residents.‘"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/patrick-brazeau-anatomy-senate-appointment-
085556765.html 14 February 2013
xvi
The preponderance of the cultural ghetto in Canada is symptomatic of the failure
of Canadian multicultural policy and not an assessment of a weakness in
multiculturalism as a nation building strategy itself.
xvii
There is, however, another twist to this knot of culpability in oppositional
positioning. Piecemeal, catch-bag, seemingly contradictory, the Act and the
movement are evidence of a larger social ambiguity rifled with hypocrisy and
ignorance. Wholesale confusion about the two is further exacerbated by weak
investigative reporting, media hype, unstated political interests, fractured
leadership, and a growing popular dissatisfaction with sustaining welfare cultures.
xviii
Here is the real windfall for the federal assimilation strategy. Some Aboriginals
are using the language of cultural evaluation and depreciation to mirror the
dominant culture. Those Aboriginals engaged with the economic action plan of
work and reward, independence and consumerism, are speaking up against public
protests when there‘s round-dancing in honor of what they reason to be social
dependency. It is perhaps the first official signal of an anti-reservation mindset
once marginally associated only with off-reserve Indians. Could Treaty Indians
possibly want individual ownership of their reservation lands?
xix
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-45/ 20 January 2013.
xx
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/04/f-idlenomore-faq.html 20 January 2013.

xxi

xxii
It differentiates between First Nations and Métis; the latter is not an indigenous
people. The Supreme Court of Canada states: ‗Métis ―does not encompass all
individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive

15

peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, and
recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European
forebears. A Métis community is a group of Métis with a distinctive collective
identity, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way
of life.‖ http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/2076/index.do?r=AAAAAQAWbWV0aXMgYW5kIGZpcnN0IG5hdGlvbgAAAAA
B 20 January 2013.

xxiii
Aboriginal cultures are welfare stereotypes or novel, spiritual primitives in
Canadian cultural consciousness. They are not respected cultures. Apple Indians
are the favored bands in this country. Bill C-45 is legislative hope to make
Aboriginals like us, whoever the ‗us‘ in Canada is. One attribute of the ‗us‘ is
economic engagement to be sure.
xxiv
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1323350306544/1323350388999 20 January 2013

xxv
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/bill-c-45-simply-makes-it-easier-for-first-nations-to-
lease-land/article6780103/ 20 January 2013
xxvi
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/18/pol-omnibus-budget-implementation-bill-part-
two.html 20 January 2013

xxvii
Moreover, how do the latest changes to the Indian Act precisely impact the
Mi'kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I.?And, which members of the confederacy are okay
with the current changes? To what degree, if any, does the Assembly of First
Nations care for the Mi'kmaq Confederacy‘s unhappiness with Bill C-45 when the
Assembly itself gave voice to influence the federal government‘s choices? Should
we assume no consultation was undertaken by the Assembly?

xxviii
xxix
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/18/pol-omnibus-budget-implementation-bill-part-
two.html 20 January 2013.

We can reframe ‗it‘ in even more stark and simple language. Ordinary Canadians
xxx

don‘t care about Aboriginals. They never did, and they never will. Why would
Aboriginals assume then, that legislative practice will give Aboriginal peoples or
their reserves preferential places in Canadian democracy? Legislative practices will
not create respectful relationships.

16

Bill c 45 and idle no more

More Related Content

Similar to Bill c 45 and idle no more

Bill c 45 and idle no more