DOCSLIB.ORG

Government of Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Government of Alberta Government of Alberta Written Submissions to Senate Standing Committee for Aboriginal Peoples Bill C- 15: An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Introduction Alberta is committed to a path of reconciliation and shared prosperity with Indigenous peoples. This path reflects the unique legal landscape in Alberta, which provides protection for the rights of Indigenous peoples within the context of our historical treaties, the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act (NRTA), Canada’s constitutional framework, and common law. Alberta has significant concerns about Bill C- 15: An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Bill C-15) and is of the view that there must be greater clarity to enhance relationships and to avoid prolonged litigation. Instead of a Bill to promote reconciliation, the federal government has introduced one that will sow frustrations and deepen divisions among people in Canada. We already see the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (the UN Declaration) being raised in litigation across the country with varying interpretations being advanced. Bill C-15 as currently drafted further complicates the courts’ roles to resolve this existing litigation. Our concerns revolve around the lack of clarity in Bill C-15. Specifically, Alberta has advocated since prior to introduction of Bill C-15 that amendments are needed to clarify: - the legislation only applies to laws enacted by the federal government and not provincial laws as suggested by use of the phrases “Canadian law” in section 4 and “laws of Canada” in section 5 ; - the UN Declaration is not being incorporated into domestic law and, while it may have a role in the interpretation of federal legislation, does not aid in the interpretation of provincial legislation or section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; - nothing in the legislation creates or adds new rights as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and - “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) does not equate to a “veto” . The Government of Alberta has consistently communicated these requests in meetings with the federal government and in correspondence, articulating with great specificity our concerns. However, we have yet to see the federal government take meaningful steps to address these concerns. Page 1 of 5 Classification: Public With this written submission, the Government of Alberta would like to ensure the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples have a succinct list of all our requests. If all of Alberta's requests are met, the final Bill will have the certainty and clarity required to ensure Indigenous peoples, companies, investors, Albertans and all Canadians are confident of legislation that promotes reconciliation and shared prosperity with Indigenous peoples. 1. Legislation Applies to Only to Laws enacted by Canada There should be no ambiguity in Bill C-15 whether provinces and territories have any obligations or responsibilities under the legislation. Prior to introduction, Alberta asked the federal government to articulate that the obligations created by Bill C-15 are requirements for the federal government alone. The federal response addressed a small number of our concerns by removing the word “national” from “action plan” and clarifying the role of federal ministers in Bill C- 15. In addition, the preamble acknowledged that provincial, territorial, and municipal governments “each have the ability to establish their own approaches to contributing to the implementation of the UN Declaration by taking various measures that fall within their authority”. However, these minor amendments do not provide enough clarity on whether provinces are obliged to establish their own action plans or approaches, and the legislation may as a result increase Indigenous expectations that provincial governments are required to implement the UN Declaration. Further, the preamble suggests there is an expectation on the part of the federal government that provinces and territories will implement the UN Declaration. Many of the potential legal and policy implications of Bill C-15 will affect areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. Alberta urged the federal government to consider the implications that Bill C-15 will have on powers or authorities that are constitutionally within provincial jurisdiction. Courts are unlikely to uphold federal attempts to legislate on matters of provincial jurisdiction. Indigenous Albertans may face increased frustration and costs when their expectations of federal outreach are not met, as the Courts are unlikely to uphold federal attempts to legislate on matters of provincial jurisdiction. Federal overreach could further harm investor certainty in Alberta and Canada and frustrate provincial efforts to create a stable environment for a strong economic recovery. This is not how Alberta or Canada builds a constructive path towards reconciliation and shared prosperity. Alberta requests amendments to Bill C-15 to: - clarify that the “measures” in section 5 are limited to legislative measures within federal jurisdiction; - clarify that the requirements of an “action plan” and that tabling of an “annual report” in sections 6 and 7 are limited to matters within federal jurisdiction and to actions by the Government of Canada alone ; and - replace the phrase “laws of Canada” in Bill C-15 with “laws enacted by Parliament.” Page 2 of 5 Classification: Public 2. UN Declaration is not domestic Law Canadian courts currently use the UN Declaration as an interpretive aid for domestic legislation. This makes the passage of the proposed legislation unnecessary if the purpose is to recognize the UN Declaration has a role in the statutory interpretation of federal laws. The actual wording of Bill C-15 does not, however, reflect this intention. Section 4(a) of Bill C-15 expressly states that a purpose of the Act is to “affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.” Section 2(3) also speaks to the “application of the Declaration in Canadian law.” This wording indicates the UN Declaration applies in Canadian law, and not simply as an interpretative aid. Furthermore, the federal 2020 Throne Speech commitment to introduce “legislation to implement” the UN Declaration, was followed by a federal engagement slide deck in 2020 (circulated to federal, provincial and territorial Ministers and National Indigenous Organizations) expressly confirming the federal government’s commitment to “fully implementing the Declaration.” Bill C-15 reinforces the federal government’s commitment to implementation. The preamble mentions implementation of the UN Declaration nine times, and section 4 states that a purpose of the Act is to “provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the Declaration.” Bill C-15 also speaks of implementing the rights and principles of the UN Declaration in Canada, and taking measures to achieve the objectives of the UN Declaration. Alberta is unclear what Canada intends with Bill C-15. The apparent attempt to implement the UN Declaration into domestic law is incompatible with aspects of current Canadian law. Canada should be mindful of the possibility of misleading the expectations of interested parties. Alberta is concerned that Bill C-15 as currently drafted enables ongoing federal intrusion into matters of exclusive provincial authority. The federal government has stated the UN Declaration would not alter the Constitution, would not make the UN Declaration law, and would not intrude on the powers of the provinces. Clarity on all those points is required. Lastly, the UN Declaration contains many articles addressing rights and entitlements to “lands, territories and resources.” As drafted, Canada, through Bill C-15, is effectively creating expectations relating to revenue sharing, which the federal government is simply unable to deliver within the context of Alberta’s treaties and the constitutional division of powers. Canada should be extremely cautious to make promises they cannot deliver within constitutional limitations or to otherwise mislead the expectations of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, which would be disingenuous, and inconsistent with Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. Page 3 of 5 Classification: Public The following revisions to the wording within Bill C-15 would address these concerns: - the UN Declaration is not incorporated into domestic law but is confirmed as an interpretive aid for domestic legislation; - The UN Declaration does not have broad application “in Canadian law” but applies only to laws enacted by the government of Canada; and - The UN Declaration is an international instrument that may be used by - courts when interpreting domestic legislation, but: o It is not substantively part of the law of Canada; and o It does not serve a role in the interpretation of Canada’s Constitution. 3. No New s.35 Rights Canada has a unique legal and political framework that affirms and protects the rights of Indigenous peoples. These rights are reflected in our Constitution, in Treaties, in the NRTA, in legislation, and through the common law, including the judicially mandated duty to consult. This framework has been established painstakingly by generations of Canadians. It reflects the unique historical, legal, and Constitutional context of our country. It is not clear what Bill C-15 will do to this existing framework. It would
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compatibility of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons with Canada’S Legal Framework and Its International Human Rights Obligations
    ENDING STATELESSNESS STATELESSNESS ENDING Relating To e Status COMPATIBILITY Of Stateless Persons With Canada’s Legal OF THE Framework And Its International Human 1954 CONVENTION Rights Obligations A SPECIAL REPORT Ending STATELESSNESS W Y #IBELONG © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015 Researched And Written For UNHCR By Gregg Erauw ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS WITH CANADA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN FOR UNHCR BY GREGG ERAUW © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015 The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or UNHCR. COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS WITH CANADA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 Background to the Report .................................................................................................................... 3 The Purpose of the
    [Show full text]
  • Manitoba, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Québec
    Court File No. 38663 and 38781 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal) IN THE MATTER OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTION ACT, Bill C-74, Part V AND IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE BY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT, 2012, SS 2012, c C-29.01 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN APPELLANT -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENT -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC INTERVENERS (Title of Proceeding continued on next page) FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Legal Services Branch, Constitutional Law Section Barristers & Solicitors 1230 - 405 Broadway Suite 2600, 160 Elgin Street Winnipeg MB R3C 3L6 Ottawa ON K1P 1C3 Michael Conner / Allison Kindle Pejovic D. Lynne Watt Tel: (204) 391-0767/(204) 945-2856 Tel: (613) 786-8695 Fax: (204) 945-0053 Fax: (613) 788-3509 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Ottawa Agent for the Intervener -and - SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION AND SASKENERGY INCORPORATED, CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION, UNITED CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC., INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN PUBLIC HEALTH
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law of Canada Student Edition
    Constitutional Law Of Canada Student Edition Wyatt usually chloridizing fecklessly or birles ghastly when semi Torin renormalizing aristocratically and revengingly. Unexplored and ranking Anurag Nazifies her harmonisation brocade or minglings spectacularly. Anaglyphic Wilburt foretastes that reportage disfeatured moronically and stalemated esthetically. Formerly known as constitutional law exchange student edition is researched; how i can. It has occurred with the constitution. It is constitutional law journal of canada supreme court of parliament of rules. Setting and constitutional law is their laws that canada student edition i can assert their legal work. Procedure pertaining to students have the law principles, canada dedicated to have jurisdiction. This is admissible as well it is a dominion of laws from decisions of prof. Though your constitutional courts. Curbside pick up enhances your own affairs of law of constitutional canada student edition of canada in this edition i get this guiding principle of parliament, signature and such as to its general rule, federalism and discussions of different court. But that law is constitutional law of laws that this edition of pei; and domestic lawand above. You continue with its publications. Please select some dimensions of canada justice in a constitution by one order even be. Your books you guess which provide a new edition of the federal court may see its rulings and individuals do not be admitted into french and negotiation, where our constitutional la. The Constitution of Canada A Contextual Analysis. The public power has now explicitly recognizes legal information. Make the constitutional matters of canada includes the book agency, unless a real one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons PhD Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2001 The onsC titution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws Janet Walker Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Janet, "The onC stitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws" (2001). PhD Dissertations. 18. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd/18 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in PhD Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS Janet Walker A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Worcester College Trinity Term 2001 The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws Janet Walker, Worcester College Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Trinity Term 2001 This thesis explains the constitutional foundations for the conflict of laws in Canada. It locates these constitutional foundations in the text of key constitutional documents and in the history and the traditions of the courts in Canada. It compares the features of the Canadian Constitution that provide the foundation for the conflict of laws with comparable features in the constitutions of other federal and regional systems, particularly of the Constitutions of the United States and of Australia. This comparison highlights the distinctive Canadian approach to judicial authority-one that is the product of an asymmetrical system of government in which the source of political authority is the Constitution Act and in which the source of judicial authority is the continuing local tradition of private law adjudication.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law Marc A
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 6 12-1-1979 The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law Marc A. Thibodeau Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc A. Thibodeau, The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law, 3 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 99 (1979), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol3/iss1/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self­ Determination in International Law I. INTRODUCTION Since the signing of the Treaty of Paris (Treaty) on February 10, 1763,1 which formalized the British position in Canada and in other lands on the North American continent,2 members of the French-Canadian community, 1. Definitive Treaty of Peace Between France, Great Britain and Spain, Feb. 10, 1763, Great Britain-France-Spain, 42 Parry's T.S. 320. The Treaty settled various territorial disputes at the conclusion of the War of 1756-63 (Seven Year's War). As part of the settlements, the King of France ceded to Great Britain all of its possessions in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and Prospects for Equality and Unity Terrence Meyerhoff
    American University International Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 3 Article 6 1994 Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and Prospects for Equality and Unity Terrence Meyerhoff Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Meyenhoff, Terrence. "Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and Prospects for Equality and Unity." American University International Law Review 9, no. 3 (1994): 913-1013. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MULTICULTURALISM AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN CANADA: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR EQUALITY AND UNITY Terrence Meyerhoff INTRODUCTION The Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Canada Act of 1982' upon request of the Canadian Parliament.2 The Canada Act is Canada's primary constitutional document and, for the first time, em- powered Canada to control its constitutional destiny? With that respon- * J.D., May 1994, Washington College of Law, The American University; M.A. 1989, University of California, Berkeley; B.A. 1986. University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to thank Thomas 0. Sargentich for his generosity in commenting on earlier drafts of this article and my wife, Monica J. Lowry, for her assistance. 1. CANADA AcT, 1982, ch. 11 (U.K.). 2. See EDWARD MCWHINNEY, CANADA AND THE CONSTITTION 1979-1982: PATRIATION OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS 172-73 (1982) (providing text of the final resolution in which Canada requested the Parliament of the United Kingdom Parlia- ment to consent to the passing of the Canada Act).
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Citizenship Laws
    cl CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP LAWS: TWO FACETS BY GUY TREMBLAY B.A., Universite Laval, 1967 Licencie en droit, Universite Laval, 1970. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of 4 MASTER OF LAWS in the Faculty of LAW We Accept this Thesis as conforming to the required standard* The University of British Columbia May, 1972 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT This thesis purports to consider two related problems in Canadian citizenship laws. In the first chapter, a comparison is made between the American state citizenship and what could be called a provincial citizen• ship in Canada. In conclusion, it is asserted that there are more factors in the United States tending to standardiz the content of the citizenship status between the states than between the provinces in Canada. Consequently, insofar as this content is determined by the states or the provinces, it can be said that Canadian provinces have been recognized by the laws of the constitution much more leeway than the American states to grant to the people they consider as their citizens a particular status which is distinct from the one possessed by citizens of other provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • First Nations Legal Inheritances in Canada: the Mfkmaq Model
    I First Nations Legal Inheritances in Canada: The Mfkmaq Model JAMES (SAKEJ) YOUNGBLOOD HENDERSON BEFORE ANY IDEA OF "CANADA" EXISTED, there was the reality of a northern Atlantic to Pacific homeland of the Aboriginal peoples, as the source for all of their legal inheritances. The land was settled by the acquiescence of the First Nations, sometimes by treaties, often grudgingly by physical occupation, occasion- ally by martial force, and slowly by European immigrants creating colonial societies as enclaves within an Aboriginal world. Legacies of colonialism and racism have 1995 CanLIIDocs 130 allowed little understanding in modern Canada about the First Nations' legal inheritances. The establishment of a new post-colonial order in Canada in 1982, where inherent and treaty rights of the Aboriginal people were made part of the supreme law of Canada, has been a first fragile step toward the revitalisation of the First Nations' legal inheritances and to the maturity of Canada as a nation. In the formation of the Canadian identity, the Aboriginal societies have always exerted a profound but subtle influence on the non-Native immigrants and their man-made societies and laws. The knowledge base of the First Nations remains mostly in indigenous worldviews, languages and rituals. Learning them is an intimate process which takes time and patience. Not unlike learning a new language, there are no shortcuts to understanding the First Nations' legal inheritances. Our learning process, however, must take the non-Native beyond language, into the deep structure of another worldview. And before all else, one must be prepared to recognise that First Nations had their own legal systems, before the arrival of the Europeans, and that they still do.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evisceration of Liberty in Canadian Courts
    chapter nine The Evisceration of Liberty in Canadian Courts Karen Selick, Derek From, and Chris Schafer * The classical liberal philosopher, J.S. Mill, said of liberty: The only [liberty] which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. (Mill, 1859/1974: 72) Mill’s concept of liberty is powerful and robust. It protects the so-called “negative” freedom of individuals, permitting them to be self-determin- ing, free from state interference of any kind, unless it is to prevent harm to another. Unfortunately, this concept of liberty is almost completely foreign to Canadian constitutional law jurisprudence. Our courts are out of step with the classical liberal philosophical foundations of our own politi- cal system. In fact, the courts in Canada have eviscerated the concept of liberty. * Karen Selick, L.L.B., is the Litigation Director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. Since her call to the Bar in 1978, she has practiced in the areas of tax planning, civil litiga- tion, wills and estates, and matrimonial law. Ms. Selick’s legal and public policy commen- tary has been published in the Globe and Mail, National Post, Lawyers Weekly, Canadian Lawyer, and other publications. Derek From, B.R.S., B.A. (Hon), J.D., is Legal Counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. After graduating with a Bachelor in Religious Studies from Briercrest College, he completed a degree in philosophy at the University of Waterloo. As a musician who has worked with many different record labels in the last ten years, he is interested in copyright law.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Canadian Law and Policy Governing Great Lakes Water Quantity Management Marcia Valiante
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 18 | Issue 1 1986 An Overview of Canadian Law and Policy Governing Great Lakes Water Quantity Management Marcia Valiante Paul Muldoon Jim Harvey Paul King Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Marcia Valiante, Paul Muldoon, Jim Harvey, and Paul King, An Overview of Canadian Law and Policy Governing Great Lakes Water Quantity Management, 18 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 109 (1986) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol18/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. An Overview of Canadian Law and Policy Governing Great Lakes Water Quantity Management by CanadianEnvironmental Law Research Foundation* I. INTRODUCTION A. A Scope of the Study As water supplies in dry areas of North America have become increas- ingly depleted in recent years, the threat of water shortages has fo- cused attention on the possibility of diverting waters from two large sources of fresh water in North America, the Great Lakes and the north flowing rivers of Canada. Concern over diversions from the Great Lakes increased in 1981 with publicity surrounding a plan for a coal slurry pipeline in the United States using water from Lake Superior. This con- cern has led to a number of initiatives to study the use of water in the Great Lakes Basin and to prepare for the possibility of a diversion being proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • National Separation: Canada in Context - a Legal Perspective Kevin Sneesby
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 4 March 1993 National Separation: Canada in Context - A Legal Perspective Kevin Sneesby Repository Citation Kevin Sneesby, National Separation: Canada in Context - A Legal Perspective, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss4/12 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. National Separation: Canada in Context-A Legal Perspective Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................... 1357 II. Background-Canada: Moving Towards Separation ..... 1359 III. The "Right" to Separate: Comparative Constitutional L aw ..................................................................... 1365 A. The Canadian Constitution ............................... 1365 1. By a Province or a Territory ....................... 1367 2. By First Nations ......................................... 1369 B. Analogy to the American and Australian Constitutions .................................................... 1370 1. The United States Constitution ..................... 1371 2. The Australian Constitution ......................... 1373 IV. The "Right" to Separate Under International Law ..... 1375 A. The Role of International Law in the Canadian Schem e ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LAW of INDIGENOUS PEOPLES in the AMERICAS: Subclasses KIA-KIP North America: Introduction
    LAW OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE AMERICAS: Subclasses KIA-KIP North America: Introduction Prospecting a new Class for the American Indigenous peoples. The new classification schedule on Law of the Indigenous Peoples in the Americas (Classes KIA-KIP: North America), currently in draft stage, is a subclass of the Library of Congress Classification( LCC), Class K (Law), and will conclude for the time being the regional/comparative law classification schedule for the Americas, Classes KDZ-KIX. Emerging project. The various stages of research for subject classification of the initial classes KIA-KIK, and the “sifting” of the Web have revealed that the critical mass of resources, in particular primary sources produced by the individual Aboriginal or tribal governments, and the output of their organizations or inter-operational institutions, together with the secondary literature, are mainly to be found on the Web – dispersed, unorganized, and for that matter, obscure. To this date, however, both information seekers and information providers are hard pressed by an uneasy reality: the obvious gap between availability and accessibility of information. Search and research are still confronted with problems, such as < paucity of (commercial) printing/publishing of current legal materials; < collections on law and sociology of Indigenous peoples, one of a kind and mostly little publicized, are held only by a few bona fide and specialist institutions; < programs with limited access; or < information on the subject which may be buried in relevant anthropological, archeological, or ethnological sources, usually in older collections on the History of the Americas. And, to this point, even < Class KF (Law of the United States), the only place in the LCC which has a section on American Indian law and law-related materials (KF8220+), does not reflect the sovereign status and autonomy of the Indian nations, nor does it reflect current Indian law making and law developments.
    [Show full text]