A Deep Dive Into the #Idlenomore Mobilization Initiative: Unpacking the Effects of Social Movements on Political Agenda and Policy Outcomes

A Deep Dive Into the #IdleNoMore Mobilization Initiative: Unpacking the Effects of Social Movements on Political Agenda and Policy Outcomes

Emmanuelle Richez, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Windsor Member, Courts and Politics Research Group Email: [email protected] - Twitter: @EmmaRichez

Vincent Raynauld, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Communication Studies, Emerson College (Boston, MA) Research Fellow, Engagement Lab (Emerson College) Research Associate, Groupe de recherche en Communication Politique (Université Laval) Research Adviser, Samara Canada Member, Réseau DEL Email: [email protected] - Twitter: @VincentR

Abstract

This study takes interest in the Indigenous-led Idle No More protest movement (INM) and how its manifestation - both online and offline - impacted the political agenda and influenced policy outcome at the Canadian federal level. Specifically, we compare activity during Question Period in the House of Commons, federal budgets and policy proposals pertaining to Indigenous Affairs before and after the emergence of the movement in December 2012. We posit that INM-related protests coincided with momentary changes to the saliency of Indigenous policy issues, but not with significant policy outcomes in that area.

Cette étude porte sur le mouvement autochtone Idle No More (INM) et sur la manière dont la manifestation de ce phénomène de contestation en ligne et hors ligne a eu un impact sur l’agenda politique et sur le développement de politiques publiques sur la scène fédérale canadienne. Nous comparons la teneur de la Période des questions à la Chambre des communes, les budgets et projets de lois fédéraux portant sur les affaires autochtones avant et après l’émergence du mouvement en décembre 2012. Nous postulons qu’INM a coïncidé avec des changements momentanés dans la structure des débats portant sur les affaires autochtones, mais pas avec des développements de politiques publiques dans ce domaine.

This is a draft - please do not cite without authors’ written permission.

Introduction

The Indigenous-led Idle No More (INM) movement emerged as a grassroots-intensive reaction to Bill C-381 and omnibus Bill C-45,2 which were introduced by Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government and received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012 and December 14, 2012 respectively (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013). Through these bills, the Government affected Indigenous and treaty rights with little to no consultations with members of Indigenous communities throughout Canada (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013). Taken together, these legislations had wide-ranging effects, including weakening environmental impact assessment procedures, reducing the number of protected water bodies in Canada and interfering with Indian bands’ reserve land governance (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013). At first, INM represented a mostly bottom-up political mobilization initiative seeking to have portions of Bills C-38 and C-45 repealed (Woo, 2013). However, its mission was broader:

‘Idle No More calls on all people to join in a peaceful revolution, to honour Indigenous sovereignty, and to protect the land and water.’ INM has and will continue to help build sovereignty & resurgence of nationhood. INM will continue to pressure government and industry to protect the environment. INM will continue to build allies in order to reframe the nation to nation relationship, this will be done by including grassroots perspectives, issues, and concern (Idle No More, n.d.).

Though INM was fuelled initially by a mixture of environmental, governance and nationhood concerns, Indigenous Peoples’ poor socio-economic conditions coupled with the legacy of colonialism quickly became important drivers for mobilization (Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013). These grievances are not new as they are rooted in a broader 500-year struggle (Ladner, 2014; Simpson, 2013; Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013).

INM was initiated in November 2012 when four women3 traded emails and discussed the implications of the passage of Bill C-38 and omnibus Bill C-45 for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. These exchanges led to the organization of a teach-in session in Saskatoon (Saskatchewan) that was promoted in part through a Facebook page titled “Idle No More” (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013). On December 10 2012, the first “day of action” cemented INM as a pan-Canadian movement with rallies in more than 13 Canadian cities (Inman et al., 2013). Over the following weeks, it quickly garnered widespread public widespread substantive public support, both in Canada and internationally, from Indigenous Peoples and their allies (Woo, 2013; Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013). INM peaked in January 2013 with Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike, which pushed Prime Minister Stephen Harper to meet with Indigenous leaders (Woo, 2013; Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013). During the meeting, Prime Minister Harper pledged to improve the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian state (Galloway et al., 2013). Since then, the mobilization effort has winded down somewhat and questions remain on its outcomes on both the political and policy fronts (MacLellan, 2013; Sinclair, 2014). This paper will address some of these questions.

Social media was a key fixture within this protest movement as a wide range of its supporters turned to these channels to express themselves, share information and, to a lesser degree, engage in social interactions (Raynauld et al., 2017; Simpson, 2013). Though the movement employed offline protest tactics such as rallies, demonstrations, hunger strikes, road and bridge blockades, cross-country walks, and flash mob round dances (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013; Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013), online tactics were an integral component of its protest action repertoire5 (Callison and Hermida, 2015; Moscato, 2016; Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013). In some cases, there was a clear integration of online and offline protest activities. For example, many of the roundtable discussions and townhall meetings organized by the movement allowed for online participation (Simpson, 2013). Early in November 2012, the #IdleNoMore hashtag quickly gained significant traction on social media (Callison and Hermida, 2015; Woo, 2013).4 At the height of the movement between December 2012 and January 2013, 743,365 tweets with at least one #IdleNoMore hashtag were shared on Twitter’s public timeline (based on work by Callison and Hermida, 2015).

As noted by Raynauld et al. (2017), INM is part of a broader wave of protest with a strong online component that have swept the political, economic, and social landscape of several national contexts over the last decades. While similar in many ways, INM distinguishes itself from other movements due to its strong cultural and identity components (also see Wotherspoon and Hansen 2013; Coulthard 2014; Raynauld et al. 2017). While many scholars have studied protest movements with a strong online component, few of them have taken interest in how they capture the attention of political elites and, in some cases, influence the political agenda and policy outcomes. Our paper addresses this gap in the academic literature in the context of INM in Canada. We do so by reviewing academic literature on online movements and their political effects. We then lay out the methodological approach used to conduct this analysis and discuss our findings. Our study suggests that INM-related activism coincided with changes to the political agenda and increased saliency of Indigenous policy issues. However, it had little effects on policy developments in Indigenous affairs-related areas.

Literature Review

Protest movements’ impact on formal political processes has received significant academic attention in recent years (see Amenta et al., 2010). Some sceptics have argued that social movements have little to no influence, while optimists point out that they can lead to major political reforms (see Amenta et al., 2010; Andrews, 2001; Giugni, 2007; Milan and Hintz, 2013; Tarrow, 1993). Scholarly literature explains the emergence of collective action through three main theories: 1) resource mobilization and organizational forms, 2) public outreach and framing strategies, and 3) political opportunities and context (Amenta et al., 2010). These theories have also been used to analyze the political impact of social movements (Amenta et al. 2010). Much less academic attention has been given to the political impact of protest movements with a strong online component, especially with the recent wave of social media-fueled protest initiatives internationally.

From the resource mobilization perspective,6 digital media - including social media - can act as an impactful technical resource for collective action. First, they can lower the threshold (for

example, costs, knowledge, technical know-how) for protest action (Van Laer and Van Aelst, 2009; 2010). Still there is an enduring democratic divide when it comes to uses of digital media for political engagement in Canada. Different variables can shape its manifestation, including access to digital media, Internet connectivity (for example, speed, bandwidth), technical skills and knowledge or familiarity with dynamics of digital political engagement (Min, 2010). Second, digital media’s distinct affordances can enable geographically dispersed, like-minded people to connect more easily and rapidly (Castells, 2012). For example, hashtags “can serve as a mechanism [...] for loosely knit groups to debate, formulate, and articulate meaning” (Callison and Hermida, 2015: 699). Third, digital media can allow social movement supporters to be active politically in channels outside the scope of media and political elites and thus have more control over the structure, the content and the circulation of their message, a process known as “self- [mass] mediation” (Uldam, 2013: 64). It can also enable them to reach and mobilize broader audiences faster (Haggart, 2013; Karpf, 2010; Uldam, 2013). In other words, Web-based networking “reduces the vulnerability of movement[s] to threat of repression since there are few specific targets to repress, except for the occupied sites” (Castells, 2012: 222).

Many of online activists’ tactics can be viewed as offline tactics partly repurposed to exploit digital media’s distinct capabilities (Karpf, 2010). Their effectiveness depends in part on how issues of concern are framed. Breindl and Briatte (2013) attribute part of activists’ success against copyright reform in France and the European Union to their ability to frame policy debate online and make it relevant and accessible to wider audiences. Rane and Salem (2012) argue that the power of the Arab Spring had less to do with social media and more to do with the framing of protesters’ message as pro-freedom and pro-democracy. Social media acted as channels of mediation rather than instigators of political reform (Rane and Salem, 2012). Online mobilization’s limitations are many and well documented in the literature. First, it is often insufficient on its own to foster change and needs to be coupled with offline tactics (Castells, 2012; Rane and Salem, 2012; Shirky, 2011). Second, Karpf (2010) found that digital information overload can cause people to unsubscribe from the organization or disengage from the movement. Third, manifestations of e-protest, which are often low threshold in nature - such as liking or sharing posts on social media or signing electronic petitions - can result in weaker traditional political outcomes (Calderaro and Kavada, 2013; Gladwell, 2010).

In his study of the Facebook-based uprising against copyright legislation in 2007 in Canada, Blayne Haggart (2013) contends that even though social media extends the breadth of social mobilization as suggested by resource mobilization theory, the consequence of mobilization is contingent on the structure of existing political institutions. On one hand, traditional political institutions have yet to develop ways to consult groups lacking formal organizational structures, such as online movements (Milan and Hintz, 2013), despite a few exceptions (see for example, Badouard and Monnoyer-Smith, 2013; Bekkers et al., 2011). On the other hand, the non- hierarchical nature of these movements prevents them from identifying and engaging with formal leadership (Calderaro and Kavada, 2013; Milan and Hintz, 2013). Furthermore, individuals taking part in collective action online are often uninterested in interacting with formal political institutions and prefer to operate outside traditional political channels (Milan and Hintz, 2013). As argued by Milan and Hintz (2013: 21), digital social movements “point to alternative ways of participating in policy-making, such as ‘policy by doing,’ creating and expanding free zones, legal bypasses, and latent policy.” In other words, there may be a disconnect between how 3

formal political organizations and how decentralized, fragmented political mobilization initiatives perceive, understand, conceptualize and engage in politics.

In sum, authors disagree on Internet-fueled collective action’s capacity to effectuate real change. While making several theoretical claims, they provide little evidence to back them up. More research is needed to ascertain the political impact of social movements with a strong digital component. Specifically, it is important to determine whether these movements can go beyond mobilizing the public and influence the setting of the agenda and actually impact policy outcomes. Social movement scholarship shows that mobilization can lead to some changes to the political agenda, but is less likely to instigate concrete policy change (Dufour and Savoie, 2014; McAdam and Su, 2002; Soule and King, 2006). As suggested by Erik W. Johnson (2008: 972), “success at the agenda setting stage is a necessary, if not sufficient, precursor to actual policy change.” Agenda setting can be described as “the process by which issues rise or fall on the political agenda, the set of problems and issues being seriously considered by policy makers” (Johnson, 2008: 972). To measure the impact of social movements on agenda setting, studies have looked at roll call votes (King et al., 2005; McAdam and Su, 2002; Schumaker, 1975), congressional hearings (Johnson, 2008) and legislative proposals (King et al., 2005; Schumaker, 1975; Soule and King, 2006; Walker, 1977) in the United States, as well as interventions during Question Period in Canada (Dufour and Savoie, 2014). As for effects on policy, it can be measured through the examination of law passage (Schumaker, 1975) and expenditures (Burstein and Freudenberg, 1978).

Methods

This articles investigates the manifestation of INM and its effects on agenda setting and policy outcomes at the federal level in Canada. INM constitutes a social media-driven movement characterized by a lack of formal organizational structure and leadership, even though it is supported by interest groups, such as the Assembly of First Nations (AFN; Woo, 2013; Raynauld, Richez et al. 2017). As one of the four women who spearheaded the movement put it, “[a]ll I can say is no political organization can speak on behalf of Idle No More” (CTVNews.ca, 2013: para. 14). Callison and Hermida (2015) also demonstrate quantitatively that top influencers of #IdleNoMore tweeting included many non-elite actors representing alternative voices to mainstream media and institutionalized groups, also known as “social media elites” (McKelvey et al., accepted by the editors). As discussed previously, online activism constitutes an important component of INM. As noted by Earl et al. (2010), some movements are strictly online movements with members disseminating information online, participating in email campaigns or signing online petitions. Other movements can be viewed as hybrids as they integrate online mobilization to facilitate offline organization (Breindl and Briatte, 2013; Earl et al., 2010). INM followed the latter political mobilization blueprint as its online components facilitated and, to some extent, fueled offline activism. In INM’s case, online mobilization can not be easily disentangled from offline mobilization. Despite this methodological challenge, we still attempted to measure the effects of INM on federal politics in Canada.

We limit our case study to the federal political scene for several reasons. First, INM is pan- Canadian in nature. Though it has gained support internationally, its supporters are located mostly in Canada (Moscato, 2016). Second, the Government of Canada has jurisdiction over 4

“Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” according to the Constitution Act, 1867. Third, actions of the Government are considered as the primary causes of INM’s emergence. Finally, most demands made by supporters of this movement were made to the Government of Canada.

To analyze INM’s impact on agenda setting, we look at the content of “Aboriginal Affairs”- related interventions by Members of Parliament (MPs) during the Question Period of the House of Commons in the year preceding the movement (Period A: December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2012), and the year following the movement (Period B: December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013). We identified 5,162 “Aboriginal Affairs”-related questions during the Period A and 4,302 questions during Period B. Many questions were already categorized as “Aboriginal Affairs” on the House of Commons website. However, there were also questions pertaining to “Aboriginal Affairs” that were not classified as such. Accordingly, we searched with a list of 17 keywords8 and key phrases throughout the Question Period to help determine if a question belonged to “Aboriginal Affairs” but was unidentified. We assess whether the difference between the percentage of “Aboriginal Affairs”-related questions asked in Period B and the percentage of “Aboriginal Affairs”-related questions asked in Period A was statistically significant using a two-sample chi-square test for proportions. We also determine the political affiliation of MPs asking “Aboriginal Affairs”-related questions, whether questions explicitly mention “Idle No More,” and what the specific topic of each question is. In cases of questions containing more than one topic, we assessed qualitatively which topic was the most significant. A summary of the coding strategy for “Aboriginal Affairs”-related question topics is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: “Aboriginal Affairs”-related question topics Topic Example(s)

Criminality • Indigenous incarceration • Rehabilitation of Indigenous criminals • Prevention of Indigenous crime

Culture and Identity • Funding of cultural activities • Symbolic claims

Economy and Revenue Sharing • Indigenous job creation and employment • “Aboriginal Affairs” funding

Education • Funding • Skills training • Indigenous graduation rates

Environment • Environmental protections or issues with reference to Indigenous communities

Governance • Issues of Indigenous self-government • The Indian Act

Health and Safety • General health conditions • Access to clean drinking water • Jordan’s Principle9 • Drug abuse • Suicide

Housing • Adequate and affordable housing • State of emergency in Attawapiskat10

Land Claims and Land-Based Rights • Jurisdiction over lands, waters and natural resources • The Government of Canada’s duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples

Poverty • General impoverished living conditions • Kelowna Accord11

Residential Schools • Apology from the Government of Canada • Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

Women and Violence • Domestic Violence against Indigenous women • Missing and murdered Indigenous women • Access to shelters for Indigenous women

We investigate NM’s impact on policy through the consideration of law passage and governmental funding related to Indigenous Affairs as suggested by Frank R. Baumgartner and Christine Mahoney (2005). Contrary to our analysis for agenda setting, we make multiple-year period comparisons for policy outcomes as social movements can have a delayed policy impact for varying reasons, including the length of the legislative process (Andrews, 2001; Tarrow, 1993). Specifically, comparisons are made on the number of parliamentary bills and yearly budgets pertaining to federal Indigenous Affairs introduced three years before (Period C) and after the emergence of INM (Period D). We verify if INM’s emergence changed trends in policy outcomes significantly or if important changes occurred previous to the rise of the movement. In order to determine which legislations to include in our analysis, we searched titles of bills proposed from December 2009 to November 2015 on the Parliament of Canada website (Parliament of Canada, n.d.), using 7 Indigenous Affairs-related keywords and keyphrases.12 We also searched for legislation proposed by the Minister of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (DINAC).13 Lastly, we include Bills C-38 and C-45, which have previously been identified as integral to INM’s rise (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013). In the two three-year periods, 31 bills were identified as pertaining to Indigenous Affairs, four of which were reintroduced and one reinstated after dying on the order paper.14 As for yearly budgets, they were obtained through an access to information request made to the Government of Canada on October 23 2015.

Findings

Agenda setting

Our analysis suggests that INM had an impact on the political agenda at the federal level. Though there were only six oral questions explicitly mentioning “Idle No More” in the House of Commons from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013, Indigenous Affairs were an integral part of the political agenda following INM’s emergence. Specifically, 4,032 out of the 4,302 oral questions considered for Period B (93.7%) were not related to Indigenous Affairs, 185 were identified by Parliament as “Aboriginal Affairs” (4.3%) and 85 were identified as relating to Indigenous Affairs (2%). In comparison, 4,927 of the 5,162 questions considered for Period A were not related to Indigenous Affairs (95.4%), 171 were identified by Parliament as “Aboriginal Affairs” (3.3%) and 64 were identified by us as related to Indigenous Affairs (1.2%). When combining identified and unidentified Indigenous Affairs questions, there were 235 questions in Period A (4.6%) and 270 questions in Period B (6.3%). We observe an increase in the attention given to Indigenous Affairs following the emergence of INM, with MPs asking more Indigenous Affairs-related questions in Period B than Period A. Our analysis suggests significant differences in the proportions of Indigenous Affairs-related questions asked between the two periods, with χ2(1) = 13.46, p < .001.15

We further analyze the data by looking at the volume of monthly Indigenous Affairs related questions during Period A and Period B (see Figure 1). The percentage of Indigenous Affairs- related questions spiked at the beginning of the movement and then lowered and stabilized until the House of Commons adjourned for the summer in June 2013. Following the summer break, MPs gave some some attention to Indigenous Affairs, but to a lesser extent than at the height of the movement. This finding suggests INM’s impact on the political agenda was short-lived. We 7

also noticed that the percentage of Indigenous Affairs related questions spiked a few months prior to the movement in June 2012.

Figure 1: Percentage of oral questions asked in the House of Commons per type from December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2013 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Indigenous Affairs (Identiied) Indigenous Affairs (Not Identiied) Not Indigenous Affairs

The specific topics of Indigenous Affairs-related questions (both identified and unidentified by Parliament) correspond to INM’s concerns and demands. Figure 2 organizes the percentage of Indigenous Affairs-related topics discussed during Question Period in the House of Commons for both Period A and Period B. It shows that both education, as well as economy and revenue sharing, were the most discussed topics in the House of Commons during Period B, which made up 30 per cent of the total Indigenous Affairs-related oral questions during that period. As discussed by Wotherspoon and Hansen (2013), Indigenous socio-economic conditions have been at the heart of INM’s concerns. The third most discussed topic was women and violence, which pertains to missing and murdered Indigenous women, and domestic violence against Indigenous women. Next, many questions regarding land claims and land-based rights were also asked. They pertained to the duty to consult Indigenous Peoples, which was one of INM’s primary demands (Inman et al., 2013; Woo, 2013).16 Health, residential schools and Indigenous Affairs governance were also put on the agenda. As discussed previously, concerns related to legacy of colonialism are one of the driving forces behind the INM movement (Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013). Finally, environmental issues were one of the least discussed topics in Period B. While environmental policy measures were partly responsible for the blossoming of INM, the movement was not able to bring this topic on the political agenda. When we compare the topics featured in Period A, we see some similarities and some differences. Indeed, the topics of housing and poverty were more important, and that of violence and women, less important than in the year that followed. Lastly, an informal review of the data reveals that Indigenous Affairs- related questions were either positive or neutral from an Indigenous point of view.

Figure 2: Percentage of Indigenous Affairs-related oral questions asked in the House of Commons per topic for Period A (December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2012) and Period B (December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013)

Health 19% 11% Housing 15% 3% Land Claims and Land-Based Rights 13% 13% Education 10% 15% Economy and Revenue Sharing 8% 15% Poverty 8% 1% Aboriginal Affairs Governance 7% 8% Period A Women and Violence 4% 14% Period B Residential Schools 4% 9% Criminal 3% 3% Environment 3% 3% Culture and Identity 3% Other 3% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of Indigenous Affairs-related questions asked per political party, which includes those identified as such by the Parliament of Canada and those that were identified by us during period A and B. During Periods A and B, a high percentage of Indigenous Affairs-related questions were asked by the Official Opposition party formed by the New Democratic Party of Canada (63.83% and 65.19%, respectively). The Liberal Party of Canada asked the second largest number of Indigenous Affairs-related questions for both periods, at 27.66 and 21.11 per cent. The Conservative Party of Canada MPs also asked a significant number of Indigenous Affairs-related questions at 7.66 and 11.11 per cent over Period A and B respectively. Independent MPs and Green Party of Canada MPs asked fewer Indigenous Affairs- related questions, each with 0.43 per cent in Period A, and 1.85 per cent and 0.37 per cent respectively in Period B. Although Forces et Démocratie MPs did not ask Indigenous Affairs questions in Period A, it asked 1.85 per cent of Indigenous Affairs questions in Period B. The Bloc Québécois did not ask Indigenous Affairs-related questions during both periods. These findings are not surprising when taking into account the way oral questions are allocated. Opposition parties are only allowed a certain number of questions per Question Period based on their representation on the House of Commons.17 As for Government MPs, they are only given the opportunity to ask some questions, but less than Opposition MPs (Parliament of Canada, 2009).

Figure 3: Percentage of Indigenous Affairs-related oral questions asked in the House of Commons per political party for Period A (December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2012) and Period B (December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013)

In order to get a more comprehensive view of the importance of Indigenous Affairs for each political formation, we look at the number of Indigenous Affairs-related questions asked per political party compared to the total number questions asked for Periods A and B (see Table 2). In the Opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada were the parties that focused the most on Indigenous Affairs. Independent MPs, Green Party of Canada MPs and Forces et Démocratie MPs had a lower level of attention given to Indigenous Affairs, while no attention was given to this policy issue by the Bloc Québécois. Finally, the Conservative Party of Canada, more specifically Conservative backbench MPs, was the party the most concerned with Indigenous Affairs during Question Period.

Following the emergence of INM, the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party increased the proportion of Indigenous Affairs-related questions during the Question Period in the House of Commons. For the Conservative Party of Canada, the difference between the proportion of questions asked in Period A and in Period B was statistically significant, χ2(1) = 5.25, p < .05. For the New Democratic Party, this difference was also significant, χ2(1) = 9.83, p < .01. Our analysis also suggests that the difference between the proportion of Indigenous Affairs-related questions the Liberal Party asked in Period A and Period B was not statistically significant, χ2(1) = .004, p > .05. Note that due to small sample size, it was not possible to test for equality of proportions for other political parties. These findings suggest that INM may have shaped the political agenda of MPs from the Government and the Official Opposition, and that of Government backbench MPs to a greater extent. To get a better sense of the Harper Government’s reaction to INM, we look at policy developments in the area of Indigenous Affairs in the following section.

Table 2: Number of Indigenous Affairs-related oral questions asked per political party compared to total number of oral questions asked in the House of Commons from December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2013

Political Party Total Number of Total Indigenous Percentage Questions Asked Affairs-Related Questions Asked

Period*

A B A B A B

Conservative Party of Canada 391 329 18 30 4.6 9.1

New Democratic Party of Canada 3,373 2,806 150 176 4.4 6.3

Liberal Party of Canada 1,144 950 65 57 5.7 6

Bloc Québécois 27 14 0 0 0 0

Forces et Démocratie 30 41 0 1 0 2.4

Green Party of Canada 37 38 1 1 2.7 2.6

Independents 160 124 1 5 0.6 4 *Period A: December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2012 *Period B: December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013

Policy Outcomes

In order to evaluate INM’s policy impact, we explore Indigenous Affairs-related bills introduced in the Parliament of Canada from December 2009 to November 2015 (Table 3). A survey of the data reveals that more bills were tabled in the 3-year period preceding the emergence of INM (Period C) than during the three subsequent years (Period D) (20 versus 11 respectively). While 50 per cent of bills introduced in Period C received Royal Assent (10 out 20), 64 per cent of those introduced in Period D did (7 out of 11). In Period C, 70 per cent of those bills (14 out of 20) were introduced by Conservative Cabinet members such as the Minister of DINAC, the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Government in the Senate; whereas the remaining 30 per cent (6 out 20) of Indigenous Affairs-related bills were private Members’ bills. The latter were presented by Conservative, Liberal and Bloc Québécois backbench MPs as well as Conservative and Liberal senators. In Period D, 73 per cent (8 out 11) of bills were introduced by Conservative Cabinet members, and 27 per cent (3 out 11) by Private Members, which included one New democrat MP and one Liberal senator.

Of importance is the content of the bills introduced. During Period C, several bills related to Indigenous Affairs did not raise any concern. Three relating to comprehensive land claim agreements between the Crown and different Indigenous groups were tabled. These agreements - also known as modern treaties - address Indigenous rights and title, and may include provisions relating to self-government (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015b). In addition, the Conservative Government introduced the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act; with the first iteration being Bill C-63 and the final one being Bill C-24. This law “allow[s] First Nations to request that their on-reserve commercial real estate projects benefit from a property rights 11

regime, including a land title system and title assurance fund, identical to the provincial regime off the reserve” (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2012: para. 7). The Government also passed the C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act in response to British Columbia's Court of appeal decision in McIvor v. Canada. This law “ensures that eligible grandchildren of women who lost Status as a result of marrying non-Indian men will become entitled to registration (Indian status)” (Government of Canada, 2016: para. 4). Furthermore, the Government first introduced Bill S-11 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act in 2012, which aims to guarantee sustainable access to clean water for First Nations. After it died on the order paper, the Government further consulted with First Nations and introduced a revised version of the Act a year later.

However, controversial bills were introduced during Period C by the Government, such as the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which forced Indian bands to publicly disclose audited financial statements like other levels of government. The inspiration for this legislative proposal came from a Private Member’s bill tabled by Conservative MP Kelly Block. Though the law was initially tabled in 2011, before the emergence of INM, it was passed in 2013 after the movement had started. The AFN perceived this law as colonial and onerous (Assembly of First Nations, 2013). There were also Bill C-38 and omnibus Bill C-45 which triggered INM. The movement was not able to have these bills amended or repealed. Additionally, the Government supported the passing of Bill C-428, titled Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, which was introduced in 2012, but only received Royal Assent in 2014, past the high point of INM. This bill removed antiquated and outdated clauses of the Indian Act, particular those related to residential schools. It also gave Indian bands “autonomy and responsibility over the development, enactment and coming into force of by-laws” (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015a: para. 3). Finally, Bill C-428 provided that the Minister of the DINAC report to the Parliament on progress made in finding a replacement to the Indian Act in collaboration with Indigenous groups. The bill was viewed as an inadequate piecemeal solution to a complex problem, concocted without the proper consultation of Indigenous Peoples (Ditchburn, 2014).

Most of the bills that did not receive Royal Assent were Private Members’ Bills responding to Indigenous Peoples’ demands. Two bills forcing the Department of Justice to determine and report if proposed laws were in conformity with constitutionally protected Indigenous rights were introduced. There was also Bill C-599 First Nations Education Funding Plan Act which would have mandated the Government to consult with Indigenous Peoples to ensure adequate and long term education funding for them. This topic was later addressed by the controversial Bill C-33 as discussed below. Finally, Bill S-212 First Nations Self-Government Recognition Act did not receive the support of the Government either. It provided for First Nations to become self-governing if their members ratified constitutions by way of referendum.

In terms of parliamentary bills presented, we see that Period D is not very different from Period C. The only notable difference is regarding the number of bills relating to comprehensive land claim agreements. Of the 11 bills that were tabled during Period D, a total of 7 bills were passed into law, and 5 of them (46%) were related to comprehensive land claim agreements. This trend is consistent with INM’s vision which favours self-government for Indigenous Peoples (Wotherspoon and Hansen, 2013). However, the federal government did not modify its approach

to comprehensive land claim agreements negotiation following the rise of INM (Richez and Raynauld, forthcoming).

More controversial during Period D, were the passing of Bill C-9 First Nations Elections Act and the introduction of Bill C-33 First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. Bill C-9, which was preceded by Bill S-6 in 2011, provides band council with the possibility to opt into a policy framework that standardizes on-reserve election practices. Many Indigenous groups view this law as paternalistic by imposing federal oversight and denying First Nations their inherent right to self-government (Beaulne-Stuebing, 2013). As for Bill C-33, an important consultation process was put in place in December 2012, at the same time INM emerged. The bill aims to provide First Nations with funding stability and more administrative control in the area of education. Though this piece of legislation initially received the support of the AFN, it was severely criticized by several other Indigenous groups as it was considered to remove control of First Nations over education. First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo was forced to resign over the controversy (CBC News, 2014), and the bill died the order paper. Lastly, Bill C-25 Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act limited membership in the newly recognized Qalipu Mi'kmaq band. Though the Government acted with the support of the band leadership, it disatisfied those expecting to have their membership application denied (Friesen, 2014).

Three bills pursuing Indigenous interests were introduced during Period D, but did not receive Royal Assent. Specifically, two Private Members’ bills pertaining to Canada’s implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) were tabled.18 Ensuring that Canadian laws conform with the principles laid-out in UNDRIP has been at the heart of INM’s demands (Woo, 2013). Of importance was the principle of “free, prior, and informed consent” of UNDRIP which provides for “the right of Indigenous peoples to say no to development on their territory” (Idle No More, 2017: para. 3). Furthermore, a legislative proposal to advance Indigenous languages and to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ linguistic rights died on the order paper in the wake of the 2015 general election. Protection of culture has also been at the centre of INM’s concerns (Coulthard, 2014; Welty, 2015).

Table 3: Parliament of Canada Bills in the Area of “Aboriginal Affairs”, First Readings in Period C

Bills Sponsor First Reading Royal Assent

C-63 First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act Minister of DINAC 10/12/2009 N/A*

C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act Minister of DINAC 11/3/2010 15/12/2010

C-503 An Act to amend the Department of Justice Act and make Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger 29/3/2010 N/A consequential amendments to another Act (Aboriginal or treaty (Ottawa--Vanier) rights)

S-4 Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Leader of the Government in the 31/3/2010 N/A* Rights Act Senate

C-24 First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act Minister of DINAC 12/5/2010 29/6/2010

C-25 Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act Minister of DINAC 12/5/2010 N/A

S-11 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act Leader of the Government in the 26/5/2010 N/A Senate

C-575 First Nations Financial Transparency Act Conservative MP Kelly Block 1/10/2010 N/A (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar)

C-599 First Nations Education Funding Plan Act Bloquiste MP Marc Lemay 30/11/2010 N/A (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)

C-22 Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement Act Minister of DINAC 4/11/2011 29/11/2011

S-2 Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Leader of the Government in the 28/9/2011 19/6/2013 Rights Act Senate

C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act Minister of DINAC 23/11/2011 27/3/2013

S-6 First Nations Elections Act Leader of the Government in the 6/12/2011 N/A* Senate

S-207 An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non-derogation of Liberal Sen. Charlie Watt 13/12/2011 N/A Aboriginal and treaty rights)

S-8 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act Leader of the Government in the 29/2/2012 19/6/2013 Senate

C-38 Jobs, Growth, and Long-Term Prosperity Act Minister of Finance 26/4/2012 29/6/2012

C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act Conservative MP Rob Clarke 4/6/2012 16/12/2014** (Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River)

C-45 Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 Minister of Finance 18/10/2012 14/12/2012

S-212 First Nations Self-Government Recognition Act Conservative Sen. Gerry St. 1/11/2012 N/A Germain

C-47 Northern Jobs and Growth Act Minister of DINAC 6/11/2012 19/6/2013 Note: Bills preceded by the letter “C” are those introduced in the House of Commons, while those preceded by the letter “S” are those introduced in the Senate. * These bills were reintroduced during a later session. **According to the Parliament of Canada website, this bill was reinstated during a later session.

Table 4: Parliament of Canada Bills in the Area of “Aboriginal Affairs”, First Readings in Period D

Bills Sponsor First Reading Royal Assent

C-469 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous New democrat MP Romeo 28/1/2013 N/A* Peoples Act Saganash (Abitibi—Baie- James—Nunavik—Eeyou)

C-62 Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act Minister of DINAC 31/5/2013 19/6/2013

C-9 First Nations Elections Act Minister of DINAC 29/10/2013 11/4/2014

C-15 Northwest Territories Devolution Act Minister of DINAC 3/12/2013 25/3/2014

C-16 Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act Minister of DINAC 5/12/2013 4/3/2014

C-33 First Nations Control of First Nations Education Minister of DINAC 10/4/2014 N/A Act

C-34 Tla'amin Final Agreement Act Minister of DINAC 28/4/2014 19/6/2014

C-25 Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act Minister of DINAC 25/2/2014 19/6/2014

C-641 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of New democrat MP Romeo 4/12/2014 N/A Indigenous Peoples Act Saganash (Abitibi—Baie- James—Nunavik—Eeyou)

C-63 Déline Final Self-Government Agreement Act Minister of DINAC 3/6/2015 18/6/2015

S-229 Aboriginal Languages of Canada Act Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal 9/6/2015 N/A Note: Bills preceded by the letter “C” are those introduced in the House of Commons, while those preceded by the letter “S” are those introduced in the Senate. * These bills were reintroduced during a later session.

Finally, the analysis of DINAC expenditures completes the investigation of INM’s policy impact (Figure 4). We notice a 2.6 per cent increase in the overall budget the year following the advent of the movement in December 2012 (from $7,930,048,199 to $8,139,037,000). We then observe a slight drop of 1 per cent the following year, which remains stable the year after that. This leads us to conclude that INM did not have a significant impact on the federal budget allocated to Indigenous Affairs in Canada. This assertion is supported when considering that the biggest increase of DINAC’s budget during the period surveyed (10.7%) took place in 2010, before INM had begun.

Figure 4: Expenditures of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada from 2009 to 2015 8.4

8.2

8 Billions of Dollars of Dollars Billions

7.8

7.6 Non-budgetary Budgetary 7.4

7.2

6.8 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Year

Note: These figures are not in current dollars.

The analysis of the passage of parliamentary bills and budgets doesn’t allow us to determine if the federal government responded positively to INM’s demands. While it signed many comprehensive land claim agreements, it also passed controversial Indigenous Affairs-related bills and stagnated DINAC’s budget. Additionally, the Conservative Government turned a blind eye on Indigenous demands throughout its last mandate. Despite pressure from the opposition and Indigenous groups, it refused to put in place a commission of inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women. It also abstained in 2015 from responding to the preliminary report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission19 pertaining to Indian residential schools, preferring to wait for the final report.

Conclusion

This paper unpacks the effects of social movements with a strong digital component on political agenda and policy outcomes. Using INM as a case study, it concludes that its activists were able to bring attention to Indigenous issues in Parliament, but failed for the most part to impact legislation in a significant way. Our analysis confirms Johnson’s findings (2008) on the effects of offline movements. We observe that INM’s emergence coincided with higher number of questions related to Indigenous Affairs being asked during Question Period in the House of 16

Commons. Furthermore, the proportion of questions related to governance and socio-economic conditions of Indigenous Peoples was higher, while that related to environmental issues was lower. Some issues that were more salient in INM-related mobilization made it onto the political agenda of MPs more than others.

While INM’s demands captured the attention of Conservative backbench MPs, they had limited effects on their own Government which, at the time, had decision-making power in Canada’s parliamentary system. We conclude the emergence of INM did not have a significant effect on policy outcomes. First, more Indigenous Affairs-related bills were tabled in the three years before the birth of the movement than in the following three years. Second, more controversial bills were adopted in the period following the creation of INM than in the preceding one. The only positive development from INM’s perspective would have been the greater number of bills relating to comprehensive land claim agreements passed between 2013 and 2015. This outcome can be considered a step towards a greater respect for Indigenous rights. Yet DINAC’s budgets stagnated after INM was founded.

If INM was not able to influence the Government immediately under the Conservatives, it may have had more success in shaping its policies under the Liberals following the 2015 general election. Prime minister Justin Trudeau’s first budget in 2016 invested 8.4 billion dollars over five years, starting in 2016-2017, on programs targeting Indigenous Peoples (Department of Finance Canada, 2016). His Government also established the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015c). These policy changes came more than three years after the movement’s emergence. Future research is required to distinguish the immediate from the delayed impacts of social movements. More importantly, more studies are required in order to better unpack the effects of protest movements with a strong social media component, and determine how these movements differ from offline-based political movements.

Endnotes

1. Bill C-38 is titled Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act. 2. Omnibus Bill C-45 is titled Jobs and Growth Act. 3. Their names were Nina Wilson, Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, and Sheelah McLean. The first three are Indigenous (Woo, 2013). 4. A search on Twitter’s public timeline reveals Jessica Gordon first used the #IdleNoMore hashtag, but it was liked and retweeted when Tanya Kappo used it. 5. The “protest repertoire” can be defined as forms of non-institutionalized, “modular” (Passy, 2009: 354), decentralized, and highly fragmented modes of political and civic action geared towards contesting or, in some cases, defending the existence, purpose, or actions of established media, governmental and political entities (see also: Raynauld et al., 2016; Van Laer and Van Aelst 2010). 6. Resource mobilization theory states that social movements’ efficacy relies heavily on their capacity to mobilize their members’ resources, whether they are social, technical, or financial (Andrews, 2001) 7. Hacktivism can be defined as a type of social protest which includes “confrontational activities like denial- of-service (DoS) attacks via automated email floods, website defacements altering the source code of targeted websites, or the use of malicious software like viruses and worms.” (Jewkes and Yar, 2009: 244). 8. The keywords and key phrases used were: Aboriginal, Bill C-45, chief, Cindy Blackstock, First Nation(s), Idle No More, Inuit, Jordan’s Principle, Métis, missing and murdered, Native, Northern Canadians, Northern communities, reconciliation, on reserve, residential schools, Theresa Spence/Chief Spence. 9. Jordan’s Principle was implemented to ensure the medical care of First Nations children takes precedence over jurisdictional disputes between the federal and provincial governments (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2016). 10. On October 28, 2011, First Nations leaders declared a state of emergency in Attawapiskat due to the lack of adequate housing (Toulouse, 2011). 11. The Kelowna Accord was a roundtable agreement among federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as Indigenous leaders, that resulted in an action plan to address Indigenous Affairs issues (Patterson, 2006). 12. The keywords and key phrases used were: Aboriginal, First Nations, Indian, Indigenous, Inuit, Métis, reserve. 13. It should be noted that the department changed names twice during this time period. Prior to June 13 2011, it was labelled Indian Affairs and Northern Development and after Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Affairs Canada. On November 4 2015, it was changed again to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. To simplify things, we use the latest appellation. 14. Bills that do not receive Royal Assent before the end of a parliamentary session are said to die on the order paper. In the following session, they may be reinstated or reintroduced. 15. Statistical significance when p < .05 16. Further work will be conducted to tweak the categorization of topics of oral question in order to better reflect volumes of policy discussions. 17. Oral questions are allocated in this manner: “The Speaker recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, or the lead questioner for his or her party, for a round of three questions. A second Member from the Official Opposition is then recognized for two questions. Two questions from the opposition party with the second- highest number of seats are recognized next for two questions each, followed by a representative from the party with the third-highest number of seats for three questions. The recognition pattern which follows these initial questions varies depending on party representation in the House and the number of Members in each party.” (Parliament of Canada, 2009). 18. Bill C-469 and Bill C-641 constitute two distinct bills. However, they are for all practical purposes identical. 19. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was put in place by the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper following the state apology made in 2008 to survivors of Indian residential schools.

References

Amenta, Edwin, Neal Caren, Elizabeth Chiarello, and Yang Su. 2010. “The Political Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 287–307.

Andrews, Kenneth T. 2001. “Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971.” American Sociological Review 65 (1): 71-95.

Assembly of First Nations. 2013. “Presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act.” http://www.afn.ca//en/news- media/latest-news/presentation-to-the-standing-senate-committee-on-aboriginal-peoples-bi (March 2, 2017).

Badouard, Romain, and Laurence Monnoyer-Smith. 2013. Hyperlinks as Political Resources: The European Commission Confronted with Online Activism. Policy & Internet 5 (1): 101–117.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Christine Mahoney. 2005. Social Movements, the Rise of New Issues, and the Public Agenda. In Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, ed. David S. Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Beaulne-Stuebing, Laura. 2013. “First Nations Elections Act an ‘intrusion’, Committee Told.” iPolitics. http://ipolitics.ca/2013/11/19/first-nations-elections-act-an-intrusion-committee-told/ (March 2, 2017).

Bekkers, Victor, Rebecca Moody, and Arthur Edwards. 2011. “Micro-Mobilization, Social Media and Coping Strategies: Some Dutch Experiences.” Policy & Internet 3 (4): 1–29.

Breindl, Yana, and François Briatte. 2013. “Digital Protest Skills and Online Activism Against Copyright Reform in France and the European Union. Policy & Internet 5 (1): 27-55.

Burstein, Paul, and William Freudenburg. 1978. “Changing Public Policy: The Impact of Public Opinion, Antiwar Demonstrations, and War Costs on Senate Voting on Vietnam War Motions.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (1): 99-122.

Calderaro, Andrea, and Anastasia Kavada. 2013. “Editorial: Challenges and Opportunities of Online Collective Action for Policy Change.” Policy & Internet 5 (1): 1–6.

Callison, Candis, and Alfred Hermida. 2015. “Dissent and Resonance: #IdleNoMore as an Emergent Middle Ground.” Canadian Journal of Communication 40 (4): 695-716. 19

Castells, Manuel. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

CBC News. 2014. “Shawn Atleo Resigns as AFN National Chief.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shawn-atleo-resigns-as-afn-national-chief-1.2630085 (March 2, 2017).

Coulthard, Glen. 2014. “#IdleNoMore in historical context. In The Winter we Danced: Voices from the Past, the Future, and the Idle No More Movement, ed. The Kino-nda-niimi Collective. Winnipeg, MB: ARP Books.

CTVNews.ca Staff. 2013. “Idle No More Co-Founder Supports Spence, not Blockades.” http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/idle-no-more-co-founder-supports-spence-not-blockades- 1.1111628 (March 5, 2017).

Department of Finance Canada. 2016. “Growing the Middle Class.” http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf (March 5, 2017).

Ditchburn, Jennifer. 2014. “Rob Clarke’s Controversial Bill to Change the Indian Act Passed into Law.” CBC News. ttp://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rob-clarke-s-controversial-bill-to-change- the-indian-act-passed-into-law-1.2881801 (March 5, 2017).

Dufour, Pascale, and Louis-Phillippe Savoie. 2014. “Quand les mouvements sociaux changent le politique. Le cas du mouvement étudiant de 2012 au Québec.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 475-502.

Earl, Jennifer, Katrina Kimport, Greg Prieto, Carly Rush, and Kimberly Reynoso. 2010. “Changing the World One Webpage at a Time: Conceptualizing and Explaining Internet Activism.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 15 (4): 425-446.

Friesen, Joe. 2014. “Surge in Newfoundland Native Band has Ottawa Stunned, Skeptical.” The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-tighten- aboriginal-membership-criteria/article17954032/ (March 5, 2017).

Galloway, Gloria, Kim Mackrael, and Adrian Morrow. 2013. “Harper Meets Chiefs, Vows Improved Relations.” The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-meets-chiefs-vows-improved- relations/article7280756/ (March 5, 2017).

Giugni, Marco. 2007. “Useless Protest? A Time-Series Analysis of the Policy Outcomes of Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in the United States, 1977–1995.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 12 (1): 53–77.

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will not be Tweeted.” The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell (March 5, 2017).

Government of Canada. 2016. “Status of Women Canada: Measures and Actions.” http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/fun-fin/ap-pa/op-ap-en.html?wbdisable=true (March 18, 2017)

Haggart, Blayne. 2013. “Fair Copyright for Canada: Lessons for Online Social Movements from the First Canadian Facebook Uprising.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 841-861.

Idle No More. 2017. “Calls for Change.” http://www.idlenomore.ca/calls_for_change (February 18, 2017).

Idle No More. not dated. “The Vision.” http://www.idlenomore.ca/vision (March 5, 2017).

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2012. “First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act.” https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100033561/1100100033562 (March 5, 2017).

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2015a. “An Act to Amend the Indian Act (Publication of By-Laws) and to Provide for its Replacement (C-428).” https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1422387592930/1422387686680 (March 5, 2017).

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2015b. “Comprehensive Claims.” https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030577/1100100030578 (March 5, 2017).

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2015c. “Government of Canada Launches Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.” Government of Canada. http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1023999&_ga=1.159066812.700940331.1483934050 (March 5, 2017).

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2016. “Jordan’s Principle.” https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1334329827982/1334329861879 (March 5, 2017).

Inman, Derek, Stefaan Smis, and Dorothée Cambou. 2013. ““We Will Remain Idle No More”: The Shortcomings of Canada’s ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples.”Goettingen Journal of International Law 5 (1): 251-285.

Jewkes, Yvonne, and Majid Yar. 2009. Handbook of Internet Crime. London: Willan Publishing,

Johnson, Erik W. 2008. Social Movement Size, Organizational Diversity and the Making of Federal Law. Social Forces 86 (3): 967-993.

Karpf, David. 2010. “Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism.” Policy & Internet 2 (4): 7-41.

King, Brayden, Marie Cornwall, and Eric C. Dahlin. 2005. “Winning Woman Suffrage One Step at a Time: Social Movements and the Logic of the Legislative Process.” Social Forces 83 (3): 1211-1234.

Ladner, Kiera L. 2014. “Aysaka’paykinit: Contesting the Rope Around the Nations’ Neck.” In Group Politics and Social Movements in Canada, ed. Miriam Smith. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

MacLellan, Stephanie. 2013. “Idle No More, One Year Later.” The Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/13/idle_no_more_one_year_later.html (March 5, 2017).

McAdam, Doug, and Yang Su. 2002. “The War at Home: Antiwar Protests and Congressional Voting, 1965 to 1973.” American Sociological Review 67 (5): 696-721.

McKelvey, Fenwick, Marianne Côté, and Vincent Raynauld. Accepted by editors. “Scandals and Screenshots: Social Media Elites in Canadian Politics.” In Political Elites in Canada Power and Influence in Instantaneous Times, ed. Alex Marland, Thierry Giasson, and Andrea Lawlor. UBC Press.

Milan, Stefania, and Arne Hintz. 2013. “Networked Collective Action and the Institutionalized Policy Debate: Bringing Cyberactivism to the Policy Arena?” Policy & Internet 5 (1): 7-26.

Min, Seong-Jae. 2010. “From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7 (1): 22-35.

Moscato, Derek. 2016. “Media Portrayals of Hashtag Activism: A Framing Analysis of Canada’s #Idlenomore Movement.” Media and Communications 4 (2): 2-12.

Parliament of Canada. not dated. “LEGISinfo.” http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Home.aspx (March 5, 2017).

Parliament of Canada. 2009. “Oral questions.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd Edition. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Procedure-Book- Livre/Document.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&sbdid=3F818022-AD6E-411C-B495- EC000CF32935&sbpid=E686AB38-E1ED-4484-88A2-16A2A9294D66#9F1889AB-6664- 4494-9808-34D7886ADE2D (March 5, 2017).

Passy, Florence. 2009. Charles Tilly's Understanding of Contentious Politics: A Social Interactive Perspective for Social Science. Swiss Political Science Review 15 (2): 351-359.

Patterson, Lisa L. 2006. Aboriginal roundtable to Kelowna Accord: Aboriginal policy negotiations, 2004-2005. Parliament of Canada. http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0604- e.htm#aparticipantsapril2004 (March 5, 2017).

Raynauld, Vincent, Mireille Lalancette, and Sofia Tourigny-Kone. 2016. “Political Protest 2.0: Social Media and the 2012 Student Strike in the Province of Quebec, Canada.” French Politics 14 (1); 1–29.

Raynauld, Vincent, Emmanuelle Richez, and Katie Boudreau Morris. 2017. “Canada is #IdleNoMore: Exploring Dynamics of Indigenous Political and Civic Protest in the Twitterverse.” Information, Communication & Society: 1-17.

Rane, Halim, and Sumra Salem. 2012. “Social Media, Social Movements and the Diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings.” International Journal of Communication 18 (1): 97–111.

Richez, Emmanuelle, and Vincent Raynauld. Forthcoming. “Une nouvelle vague de luttes autochtones : Étude de l’impact politique du mouvement Idle No More.” In Citoyennetés autochtones, ed. Stéphane Marceau and Daniel Salée. Montreal: Québec-Amérique.

Schumaker, Paul. 1975. “Policy Responsiveness to Protest Group Demands.” Journal of Politics 37: 488–521.

Shirky, Clay. 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-12-20/political- power-social-media (March 5, 2017).

Simpson, Leanna. 2013. “Idle No More: Where the Mainstream Media Went Wrong.” The Dominion. http://dominion.mediacoop.ca/story/idle-no-more-and-mainstream-media/16023 (March 5, 2017).

Sinclair, Niigaan. 2014. “Idle No More: Where is the Movement 2 Years Later?” CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/idle-no-more-where-is-the-movement-2-years-later- 1.2862675 (March 5, 2017).

Soule, Sarah, and Brayden King. 2006. “The Stages of the Policy Process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972–1982.” American Journal Of Sociology 111 (6): 1871-1909.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1993. “Social Protest and Policy Reform: May 1968 and the Loi d’Orientation in France.” Comparative Political Studies 25 (4): 579–607.

Toulouse, Angus. 2011. “Housing crisis in Attawapiskat.” Chiefs of Ontario. http://www.chiefs- of-ontario.org/housing-crisis (March 5, 2017).

Uldam, Julie. 2013. “Activism and the Online Mediation Opportunity Structure: Attempts to Impact Global Climate Change Policies?” Policy & Internet 5 (1): 56–75.

Van Laer, Jeroen, and Peter Van Aelst. 2009. “Cyber-Protest and Civil Society: The Internet and Action Repertoires of Social Movements.” In Handbook on Internet Crime, ed. Yvonne Jewkes, and Majid Yar. London: Willan Publishing.

Van Laer, Jeroen, and Peter Van Aelst. 2010. “Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations.” Information, Communication & Society 13 (8): 1146-1171.

Walker, Jack. 1977. “Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection.” British Journal Of Political Science 7 (04): 423.

Welty, Emily. 2015. “Activism, Agency, and Assemblage: Performing Resistance in Occupy Wall Street and Idle No More.” In Peace Studies between Tradition and Innovation, ed. Randall Armster, Laura Finley, and Edmund Pries. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Woo, Grace L.X. 2013. “Decolonization and Canada’s ‘Idle No More’ Movement.” Arctic Review on Law and Politics 4 (2): 181-206.

Wotherspoon, Terry, and John Hansen. 2013. “The “Idle No More” Movement: Paradoxes of First Nations Inclusion in the Canadian Context.” Social Inclusion 1 (1): 21–36.