MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,956
- Points
- 1,210
6 questions on oct 19th affect the constitution, so technically the feds might have a case to review the questions and make sure they are clear
All Things AB Separatism (split fm Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???)
- Thread starter Stoker
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,344
- Points
- 1,140
Except unless the fed open up a constitutional convention those questions mean squat.
The only one the province can act on unilaterally is the separation one and that is a hypothetical.
- Reaction score
- 884
- Points
- 910
It all depends on the view of the courts that consultation is conducted in a honorable way.
It's a nation (Canada and through the constitution delegated to the province, or in some cases project proponent) to Indigenous community. But there are some established criteria
1) the project must be clearly defined and potential impacts to constitutionally recognized rights identified.
2) it must be a plain language document. Which means no gobbly-gook verbiage and must be clearly understood by the community
3) it must allow sufficient time to ensure the community has a) recieved the document b) been able to raise concerns c) have the concerns raised addressed by the proponent on how they wish to address them (if possible) d) proponent mitigation reviewed by the community. At a certain point the proponent can go to the crown and ask for a ruling on consultation.
4) The crown must be able to demonstrate the project - as described initially - was considered along with all feedback and mitigation proposed. It is to be considered in the final approval of a project but if not accepted then justification as to why is also required. Hence an informed decision vs. rubber stamp.
Not a lawyer but the above are common discussions when proposing or reviewing consultation projects and communications.
So when I look at that referendum question the following arguements could be made:
1) the project is not clearly defined and the potential impacts to constitutionally recognized rights/treaties is significant
2) it is not a clean, plain language decision
3) Commencing consultation today, for a decision of this magnitude, with concerns raised, would be tough to have completed by October. Simpler projects generally start at a month+ for consultation and many taken 4-6 months on routine matters (in part due to number of communities/holidays/timing of meetings etc.). This is every Indigenous community in Alberta plus some recognized groups in BC.
4) An argument could be made, especially in light of some of procedural committee issues/pre-recorded press release events that this is a pre-determined outcome and consultation will not be considered.
- Reaction score
- 8,147
- Points
- 1,360
Courts can rule on the constitutionality of something without needing a constitutional convention.
Something something reference re secession.
- Reaction score
- 2,344
- Points
- 1,140
Going over quickly the questions in question, most seem to be "lets work with the other provinces to change the constitution on ____"
To which the courts cannot really rule on the constitutionality of a question seeking to change the constitution.
Again this being separate from the referendum question which punts the immediate action into the realm of the hypothetical, which, to my knowledge, isn't something the courts or parliament can do anything about.
Duty to consult would only trigger if a yes vote is reached to have a future referendum.
So while I agree with the first nations that this is all a big waste of everyones time, I do think Danielle Smith constructed it in a way to keep the feds and the courts at bay at least until after we know the results of the referendum on whether or not to have a referendum.
- Reaction score
- 8,147
- Points
- 1,360
The courts can say whether it’s within the guardrails to even ask the question to do something down the road. And each of those somethings could also be considered by the Black Mumu Behind the Bench Club.
Call me cynical but anything can be brought to the courts.
- Reaction score
- 2,344
- Points
- 1,140
Oh, certainly anything can be brought to the courts.
I just don't see the courts touching it.
What Alberta/Smith seems to be asking for is another Meech Lake or Charlottetown, which is fully within their rights to do so. Doesn't stop the rest of Canada from telling them to bug off though.
Similar threads
