Idle no more
Has anyone been paying attention to the Idle No More ampaign that's been going on? As I understand it, Canada's First Nations members are protesting C-45, a massive omnibus bill called the Jobs and Growth Act. What's receiving the most attention is the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which the bill's opponents say would weaken environmental restrictions.
Stateside, I'm interested in it because a lot of the local tribes in the Puget Sound region have voiced their own solidarity with the First Nations members. My ears always prick up when I hear mention of environmental regulation. I'm especially keen on learning whatever I can about tar sands, Embridge, and the Keystone Pipeline. These issues always seem to inevitably lead me to asking, "What's up with Alberta?!"
And I don't really trust Harper, either. True, arguments have been made that the Conservative party is about as "liberal" as America's Democrat party, but it isn't really a question for me of liberal/conservative, but rather of essential political philosophies. The Canadian Conservative members would feel more at ease referencing the likes of Milton Friedman than they would in praising John Maynard Keynes. While they wouldn't have the political power of upending national the health care program entirely, they probably wouldn't be too keen on remembering Tommy Douglas's birthday either. So, I'm wary of this party because I can guess at what they dream about
But again, from where I stand (or sit) stateside, I've no real stake in any of this, save for armchair musings. Yet, inasmuch as environmental policies have a way of transcending national interest, I would like to know more about C-45 and the Idle No More movement.
Recent stories I've been reading point to something rather predictable. Whenever a populist movement arises, assassination (real or figurative) cannot be too far away. In this instance, character assassinations appear to be occurring. Criticisms also appear to be mounting over the means the protestors are employing to seek attention for their cause. And, there appears to be criticism over Chief Spence's hunger strike. Is this to be another version of the Occupy Movement, others ask, seeing the event as largely directionless and unproductive.
As I understand it, there is truth to the allegations concerning corruption. The various chiefs that have been cited are, or may very likely be, corrupt. However, does this really change anything fundamentally? Is the Navigable Waters Protection Act still not worth being concerned about? Are there also other things within C-45 worth being upset about?
This is what I'd like to know, although I haven't had much time for research