Supreme Court rules Ottawa has no duty to consult with Indigenous people before drafting laws

[wildmanyeah]

This ones interesting, I don't no If i agree with the 7 justices in favor. I think I am in agreement with Justice Rosalie on this one. I think the other justices were to scared to step on the feet of parliament ("The court said the legislative process is not subject to judicial review).

Justice Rosalie Abella was a dissenter on the duty-to-consult ruling.

She said the honour of the Crown "infuses the entirety of the government's relationship with Indigenous Peoples," and thus the duty to consult "must apply to all exercises of authority ... this includes in my view the enactment of legislation."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-indigenous-rights-consultation-parliament-1.4858321

Supreme Court rules Ottawa has no duty to consult with Indigenous people before drafting laws

 

[california]

What surprises me is there were 2 dissenters. Government being able to decide laws is the basis of our system, as is the right to challenge those laws through the legal system if we believe they violate the constitution or precedent of previous case law. This is one time common sense prevailed.

 

[wildmanyeah]

What surprises me is there were 2 dissenters. Government being able to decide laws is the basis of our system, as is the right to challenge those laws through the legal system if we believe they violate the constitution or precedent of previous case law. This is one time common sense prevailed.

That was my original thought as well. As well as my thoughts throughout watching this.

After reading it not sure. I get the dissenters point.

How can you consult after the law is voted on? Is that not more informing at that point? And the only recourse is a lengthy surpreme court challenge. Where these things typically end up.

 

[agentaqua]

That was my original thought as well. As well as my thoughts throughout watching this.

After reading it not sure. I get the dissenters point.

How can you consult after the law is voted on? Is that not more informing at that point? And the only recourse is a lengthy surpreme court challenge. Where these things typically end up.

x2 WMY. Maybe they don't need to "consult" on passing laws - but if those laws - and the implementation of those laws through regulations affect FNs and either their rights or titles - and they didn't consult properly - many more years of court cases will ensue. Kinda depends upon whether or not they had adequate legal review to ensure that they were following the intent of s.35 of the Constitution Act and the associated case law since 1982 - or not - BEFORE they passed whatever law.

 

[searun]

Have to agree this is very surprising. Having won the case, I would still hope our government would simply do the right thing here, and as was suggested in another post, take the honourable high road despite winning a case that says they are not under legal obligation to do so. When governments stop listening to the people they apparently have a duty towards, they generally find themselves on the outside looking in.

 

[ziggy]

Have to agree this is very surprising. Having won the case, I would still hope our government would simply do the right thing here, and as was suggested in another post, take the honourable high road despite winning a case that says they are not under legal obligation to do so. When governments stop listening to the people they apparently have a duty towards, they generally find themselves on the outside looking in.

I look at it more like just confirming Canada isn’t required to consult on all legislation and thus deal with another parallel level of government. I don’t think it in any way allows the government to push through legislation that directly impacts FN without consulting them and would hope it’s never interpreted that way. The big issue will always be how much consultation is enough?

 

[agentaqua]

...The big issue will always be how much consultation is enough?

Well - wrt infringements on Rights & Title issues - that has been covered quite a bit in the case law over the past 25 years or so. This was the case of that test wrt passing legislation thru the commons. It's the output that matters, really. Whether or not the honour of the Crown has been preserved - and if there are infringements - that consultation level has been outlined in the case law.

 

[ziggy]

Well - wrt infringements on Rights & Title issues - that has been covered quite a bit in the case law over the past 25 years or so. This was the case of that test wrt passing legislation thru the commons. It's the output that matters, really. Whether or not the honour of the Crown has been preserved - and if there are infringements - that consultation level has been outlined in the case law.

And yet the Feds and their high priced Legal Advisors just recently pooched it again!

 

[agentaqua]

It doesn't surprise me that you don't get it Floater. It's not about a "racial group" - but rather the Crown's honour and commitment to it's fiduciary duty to another level of governance. The "racial" part is the Indian Act that was imposed upon aboriginal culture and governance - and still is.

 

[fish4all]

Time for some new laws. And a rewrite of the Indian act.

 

[ziggy]

I doubt you would ever get consensus from all First Nations. The government tends to try to negotiate as a government to government, as if all First Nations are a single entity and as we all know, they are not.The reality is there is no single First Nation representative that has the power to speak for all the numerous First Nations, so really, government to government negotiation is far more challenging and has to be done one band at a time. Even if for example 90% of First Nations wanted the Indian Act abolished , it would never happen due to the 10% who were against it. Look at the Pipeline debate! Who speaks for the First Nations, the pro or con groups?
At best if there ever becomes a time where we have and endless supply of money and time, the Indian Act may be amended. If you want a 100% sign on to consider it a success, good luck.

 

[agentaqua]

Going to be a tough one to get rid of - as Ziggy mentioned. Altho it is onerous and colonial and racist - it does provide support for non-treaty FNs. So... the devil you know verses the one you don't... hard choice...

 

[wildmanyeah]

UNDRIP has paved a path forward that is generally accepted among most indigenous people.

Free, prior and informed consent

Self determination

 

[Floater]

Kinda ironic how the people that want to try to erase racism always seem to be for treating chosen race groups differently.

 

[agentaqua]

The only one whom seems to be stuck on "race" - appears to be you, Floater.

 

[Floater]

The only one whom seems to be stuck on "race" - appears to be you, Floater.

Yup.

Your woke AA, so woke.