December 16/12

Tonight, I bothered to reach out and speak to a politician.  Why?  Because I didn't feel like being patronized.

Senator Patrick Brazeau is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I would expect that he would have even the most rudimentary understanding of why First Nations (and Aboriginals, writ large) are very upset by the passage of bill C-45, an omnibus which included changes to the Indian Act, but more crucially allowed for protections to be removed to 2.5 million waterways in Canada.  As usual, whenever he wants to prove he isn't actually very good at his job as a Senator, he took to Twitter to pick a fight about the actual legislation regarding the changes to the Indian Act included in C-45, possibly hoping to deflect from the real issue which is the lack of consultation with Aboriginals on the waterways changes. 

You might be wondering why the government would have to consult with Aboriginals, and as simply as possible, this is why: waterways are an essential component of many activities, practices, and traditions of the Aboriginal peoples (e.g. hunting, trapping, fishing) that are integral to the distinctive culture of Aboriginal peoples, and time and time again since the Constitution has come into effect, multiple courts have ruled on and upheld findings that the government has a duty to consult under section 35 with respect to said activities, practices and traditions related to hunting, trapping, fishing, and land claims.

When the government goes and removes environmental protections to all by 82 lakes in Canada, that opens the door to activities which can and may actually impinge on or harm the rights of Aboriginals to pursue their traditional activities.

Of course it's difficult to say all of that in 140 characters, but I made it my business to inform Mr. Brazeau that we're on to his deflection tactic of pointing to Indian Act changes on voting on land surrenders to distract from the real issue of duty to consult, not because I disagree with the omnibus and find the rationale for it (Jobs and Growth) to be precarious and suspect, but because he was doing it in just the most patronizing and obtuse fashion.

At one point, he asked someone how many pages C-45 was, as if that somehow proves whether or not someone has read the whole thing--for someone who fancies himself to be social media savvy, he hasn't quite caught on to this google thing (by the way, there are 430 pages per the Queen's Printer)--even if I haven't read a lot of sections (including truly drear tax code changes and changes to PRPP), I'm smart enough to google and find the PDF of the Bill and read (1 of 430) at the top of my Adobe Reader toolbar.  Hell, I even went so far as to find the pages (226-229) of the bill related to his deflecting argument.  Yes, Mr. Brazeau, it appears you found the magical bullet of asking for a page count to prove whether the document has been read or not.

Senators who aren't bad at their job...

...Wish you were here.