It's interesting that the article frames this as an issue that could topple the NDP, and that the NDP is basically backing out to appease a minority group at the potential expense of the majority's interests. Ie. It's a bigger risk to the NDP governments survival, to appease a minority groups demands, than to work for the majority's interests. Pretty sure that's not how democracies are meant to work. Leaving this issue as is, risks them losing public support; but they can't convince their FN ministers to consider the broader public, as the FN ministers are primarily just there to represent FN interests, not the communities they were elected in it seems. Many FN often have "destroy Canada from within" type vibes...

Like the story highlights that the NDP backed off because they couldn't get the support from one of their members, who happens to be the wife of a First Nation chief. I guess demanding laws/legislation that benefit you personally / your race at the expense of others, and at the expense of the citizens in your riding, is what our politicians are about these days. Like she stands to personally profit / benefit from blocking the proposed alteration -- in most other normal circumstances, this'd be tantamount to corruption. Stories about politician personal interests taking control of government actions/holding government hostage to their agendas, should have a negative context in any democratic news story in my view. Instead we phrase it as something to be lauded. Like imagine if we had heard that someone was blocking something like eco protection laws, and that the change that was being blocked would remove a bunch of privileges from their husband/wife's business/career. Like, idk, Donald Trump taking actions to benefit his family. Not a good news story, even if he tries to expand it and say "It benefits other rich white people too!". But we're treating this like it's a morally appropriate stance for this particular MLA.

Shit, my strata has stricter conflict of interest laws than our government. This lady should be bowing out of the vote entirely as she can't realistically make an unbiased call, if her husband/family directly profits/benefits from her actions as an MLA. If she/they want to have nation to nation relations, they shouldn't be in a position to dictate "our" nations actions from inside. Imagine if non-FN could join FN to dismantle FN benefits from inside the FN leadership structure.