Idle no more movement in Canada

Essay Instructions:

Dear writer. This is an assignment that needs to be completed by Feb 11th the latest and needs to be done professionally. But If you like You can Complete the Conflict mapping template "Which consist of The Case Issue and 4 who's and the needs and concerns" I can take that to my T.A before hand , so from February 4th-feb 8th I have time to take the template and ask if we are on the right track or not. Or If you are 100% sure about your work then no need for me to ask the T.A if we are on the right track or not be done by feb 11th. This assignment is pretty simple, You need to choose the topic first and then complete the conflict mapping and write 2 pages summary of the mapping diagram. The instructions will be uploaded on pdf file. Choose the topic that you're good at, because by march future you will be writing a 6 page Final essay which is due on March 12th regarding the same topic. Please create a title page and bibliography as well. The instructions: This is a 3-page, double-spaced assignment. This page count does not include a title page or bibliography – although both title page and bibliography are required. For this assignment you will need to submit a completed conflict mapping diagram (below) and a 2-page summary of reflections from your reading of your conflict map. To complete this assignment, follow steps 1-4 to fill out the mapping diagram and step 5 to write your 2-page summary. Your 2-page summary should include a clear thesis statement. STEP 1: CHOOSE ONE OF THESE CASES A. Gun control in the United States B. Idle No More Movement in Canada C. Israel Palestine Conflict STEP 2. DEFINE THE ISSUE AT THE CENTER OF THIS CONFLICT Using the template included below, start by writing the issue in the middle of the page. In defining the issue, take care not to identify a person as the problem. Rather label the issue in broad, objective terms, in a way that all parties to the conflict would agree. For example: not "employee's laziness'' but ''workload division', or not ''teenagers leaving their rooms in a mess'' but ''household chores". Aim for a clear idea of the issue to be mapped, but don't worry if it's not exactly right. Sometimes the process of mapping itself clarifies the issue. Keep it open-ended and objective to provide a good starting point. STEP 3. IDENTIFY WHO IS INVOLVED Decide who are the major parties in the conflict. Include individuals (e.g. a political leader) or whole groups (e.g. the National Rifle Association, the Palestinian Authority, etc). Include people who may affect or be involved in the conflict both directly and indirectly. As long as the people involved share needs and concerns on the issue, they can be grouped together. It's possible to include both individuals and groups on the same map. Write a list of all these people. Then decide who to focus on in the map. Draw segments out from the circle in which to identify each of these people or groups. STEP 4. LIST THE MAJOR NEEDS AND CONCERNS OF EACH PARTY o Needs: The word ''needs'' does not have to be used too precisely. It may include wants, interests or the things each stakeholder cares about. Needs are those things towards which we are motivated to move. Sometimes the same need applies to several or all people. Listing those for each party shows that there are common needs. o Concerns: Concerns include fears, anxieties, worries – those things from which we are motivated to move away. Again, they may be both tangible (such as not having enough money, not getting the work done) or intangible (such as lack of respect, being rejected). There are some concerns that are the reciprocal of some needs. Concerns that correspond in this way do not have to be listed if they already appear in the needs column. (e.g. having listed ''clear guidelines'' as a need, it is not necessary to list ''not having clear guidelines'' as a concern). Sometimes under the heading of concerns, it's easier to draw out motivations that don't surface so well when considering needs. For example it's more palatable to say "I fear being out of control and powerless'' than "I need to have power and control". And it is also true that some concerns are more comfortably articulated as needs. STEP 5: 5 REFLECTIONS FROM READING YOUR CONFLICT MAP. Lead with a main argument (thesis) and discuss the following: Discuss: 1. Common Ground 2. Hidden Needs, Concerns and Pay-offs 3. Special Concerns 4. New Perspectives and Insights 5. Leads Consider: Are there needs and concerns held by all or most stakeholders? What the stated needs might be masking: - Deeper needs and concerns; or - Unstated intentions or pay-offs. What are particularly difficult areas that need attention? Before this assignment, what had I not appreciated in my understanding of this conflict? What seems clearer to me now? What have I noticed that is worth following through or finding more information? GOODLUCK. Let me know if you need anything

Essay Sample Content Preview:

IDLE NO MORE MOVEMENT IN CANADA
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Conflict Mapping Diagram
showing the needs and concerns of major stakeholders

The issue in this conflict is rights and environmental protections, and the movement began as a response by the Aboriginals to the proposed Bill C-45 by the Canadian government, which they claim is an assault on native sovereignty as well as on laws that protect the environment. Bill C-45, passed in December 2012, changes how First Nations approve the leasing or surrendering of territory, making it much easier to open the indigenous treaty lands to development. Furthermore, it also decreases the number of development projects requiring environmental assessment, and significantly changes Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) renaming it the Navigation Protection Act (NPA). Since 1882, this NWPA illegalized blocking, altering or destroying any water that is deep enough to float a canoe without the approval of the federal government. With the changes made, only exclusively enumerated water bodies have that protection.
These changes drew fire from the Aboriginals, First Nations and even environmental groups. This is chiefly because the NWPA had mandated a far-reaching consultation and approval process before any kind of construction could take place in or around any water that could in principle be navigated by any floating craft. However, under the new NPA, the approval/authorization process will only be required for development around one of an immensely defined list of waterways set by the Transportation Minister. In addition, most of the newly deregulated waterways pass through traditional land of the First Nations.
As much as Idle No More protestors are worried and concerned about Bill C-45, the Federal government believes that most of them have incorrectly interpreted the legislation. For instance, the changes made to the NWPA are not a threat to indigenous resources. The Harper government is reducing its jurisdiction on three oceans, 62 rivers and 97 lakes, whilst leaving the environmental management of smaller water bodies and streams to provinces and municipalities. According to Harper’s government, this means/connotes more local control over projects without the red tape and excessive delays of federal government. Moreover, Harper’s government holds the view that an amendment to a legislation that allows the First Nations communities to lease their land has been depicted falsely as an act allowing for the sale of indigenous land. All it does, it asserts, is to help accelerate the process for possible lease deals, which Aboriginal elders and leaders have sought so that they can compete for economic development.
The major parties and stakeholders include the Aboriginal and First Nation people, their supporters, and political leaders in Canada such as President Stephen Harper representing the government. Those involved directly include Attawapiskat chief Theresa Spence and Elder Raymond Robinson who went on hunger strike is support for the movement. Apart from the four key stakeholders – Government, Aboriginals, First Nations and their supporters – other stakeholders in this conflict include the industries/developers and Canadian non-supporters of the movement. The companies involved are those within the petroleum/energy, logging and mining industries who exploit resources on First Nation Territories.
Apart from Bill C-45, another contentious piece of legislation is Bill C-38, which stems from 2012 budget and was passed in June 2012. It overhauls the country’s environmental assessment law and redefines protections for fish. It also gives the federal government new decision-making powers with regard to resource development. According to the Aboriginals and their supporters, the changes allow energy and mining corporations to steamroll over their concerns and hurry into resource exploitation without properly/effectively accounting for damage to animal habitats. Notwithstanding, the Harper government holds the view that the changes have imposed new responsibilities on companies when it comes to dealing with Aboriginals and First Nations. This is primarily because plans for resource exploitation will have to take into consideration any effect on historical sites, aboriginal health, socio-economic conditions and physical and cultural heritage. In relating with the industry, the movement is against certain types of resource exploitation especially on First Nations territory in order to respect environmental sustainability as well as First Nations sovereignty. However, the movement advocates for resource exploitation on indigenous territories with benefit to the indigenous communities.
The need of the industry/developer is to exploit resources on Aboriginal and First Nations territories for economic gain. They relate with the federal government in that the Harper government issues them the licenses for logging, petroleum and mining and other resource extraction. Canadian non-supporters for the movement are also a stakeholder in this conflict. Polls indicate that nearly half of Canadian citizens do not support the Idle No More movement, and over half of those with First Nations ancestry share the same opinion/sentiment. A vast majority of these Canadian non-supporters are not happy with the Idle No More protestors blockading rail lines, bridges, major highways and border crossings and some feel personally inconvenienced with the protests. In addition, many non-supporters believe that Idle No More protestors have misinterpreted the legislation and should halt their protests.
The goals and vision of the indigenous communities revolves around their Ways of Knowing, which is rooted in their sovereignty to protect air, land and water for future generations. To them, Bill C-45 threatens treaties and this indispensable indigenous vision of sovereignty. Indigenous rights of the Aboriginal and First Nation Peoples and environmental protection is a major issue in Canada today, and there is need for the conflicting parties to come to an amicable solution that will be satisfactory to all of them. With regard to common ground, there are needs and concerns that most stakeholders hold in this conflict. For instance, the Aboriginals, First Nation peoples and their international supporters all agree that indigenous rights and sovereignty should be protected and respected by the government. Additionally, they hold the common ground on environmental protections with regard to land and water. In passing Bill C-45, the government has some hidden needs. First, it wants to give more power and authority to the provincial governments through weakening of federal environmental regulations. This wa...

Updated on January 26, 2024

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order