• 5 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2024年3月28日

help-circle




  • The Indian Act does need to go and most of the statue is colonial bullshit. Something has to replace to it, it could be updated or new treaties, a constitutional amendment, a statute that codifies treaties and how the the Federal government is to interact with Indigenous Peoples.

    For example Treaty 1 and 2 are really simple in the sense that it’s only land swap and payment. It doesn’t deal with natural resources, taxation, infrastructure projects that cross boundary lines, movement of goods and services, etc.

    Section 87 lays out taxation and is very heavily litigated.

    87 (1) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any Act of the legislature of a province, but subject to section 83 and section 5 of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, the following property is exempt from taxation:

    (a) the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve lands or surrendered lands; and

    (b) the personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve.

    Section 89 and 80 lays out protections for Indigenous Peoples when it comes to property. This sections mean seem niche however s. 89 and s. 90. have been litigated and have real impacts.

    89 (1) Subject to this Act, the real and personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve is not subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band.

    (1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a leasehold interest in designated lands is subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress and execution.

    (2) A person who sells to a band or a member of a band a chattel under an agreement whereby the right of property or right of possession thereto remains wholly or in part in the seller may exercise his rights under the agreement notwithstanding that the chattel is situated on a reserve.

    90 (1) For the purposes of sections 87 and 89, personal property that was

    (a) purchased by Her Majesty with Indian moneys or moneys appropriated by Parliament for the use and benefit of Indians or bands, or

    (b) given to Indians or to a band under a treaty or agreement between a band and Her Majesty, shall be deemed always to be situated on a reserve.

    Throwing out the god awful Indian Act and not having something to replace it, is a very terrible idea that will lead to major consequences. Kinew is intelligent, he probably knows know that however he saw a golden opportunity to do some PR with a damn good quote. Kinew’s actions got people talking again about how things have to change. Something the Federal Government acknowledged back in 2014 with the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act.

    All I know as an non-Indigenous person is that: Indigenous peoples have been shit on by Governments for centuries, the relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples needs to be improved, and the Indian Act is a colonial artifact that has no place in Canada. What ever replaces it, may it be updated or new treaties or whatever definitely needs the buy in Indigenous Peoples.














  • The Constitution Act, 1982 doesn’t lay out how elections or electoral finances or voting or campaigns, etc are to be handled. The Constitution only says that elections have to happen every 5 years (s.4 of the Charter and s. 50) and anyone who can vote can be a MP/MPP/MLA (s.3 of the Charter), the conditions to suspend elections (s.4(2) of the Charter), and how many and how ridings are created for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia(s. 40), and electoral officers (s.83) for Ontario and Quebec. The ridings and the electoral officers are subject to federal or provincial law.

    Section 51(1) does lay how to readjust the ridings.

    On a fun fact about the Constitution. Many people think it takes 7 provinces with 50 percent of the population to change the Constitution. Certain sections can be changed with a simple vote in the House and/or Provincial Legislature to change.

    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

    How elections are run is decided by either the Elections Act at the Federal level or a Province’s version of the Elections Act.


  • Don’t sign up for a class action law suit. File your own claim in a small claims court. You’ll get more money out of the law suit. Also, if everyone filed a small claims law suit, the companies would have to pay out more.

    If a 100 people each sued for $20,000. That would be $200,000. Each of those 100 claims costs the company about 10 hours in billable hours and the lawyers are charing $500 per hour. That’s about $50,000 gone.

    Now, let’s say 100,000 people sue for $20,000, that’s $2,000,000,000 being paid out with $500,000,000 in legal fees.

    1,000,000 people at $20,000 is $20,000,000,000 to be paid out with $5,000,000,000 in legal fees.







  • TLDR: The trucker protest was really just an anti-Trudeau protest and not about COVID restrictions

    Time for a brief history of trucker protest, federal/provincial jurisdictions, and international borders.

    Both Canada and the US exempted unvaccinated truckers when it came to crossing borders to help mitigate supply chain issues. Eventually, both Canada and the US decided that you need to be vaccinated to enter Canada or the US. The idea of a host country gets to control who enters their country is fundamental concept of international borders.

    What this meant is that US truckers would need to be vaccinated to enter Canada and vice versa. As much as people think Trudeau is all powerful dictator, he doesn’t have the power to dictate to the US about their COVID restrictions.

    The truckers should have protested at the US embassy or at the border to pressure the US to allow unvaccinated Canadian truckers in.

    The protest morphed into general COVID restrictions. Cool, this is something that Canadian protesters can try affect change. The Constitution Act, doesn’t just lay out rights and freedoms. It lays out how governments are to operate (the legislative, executive, judicial), judges, the Courts, taxation, etc.

    Section 92 lays out what is under Provincial jurisdiction.

    1. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
    2. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

    The Supreme Court in Schneider v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 112 dealt with the issue of public health and Provincial jurisdiction.

    The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (the Rowell-Sirois Commission) in 1938 commented on this absence of a specific head of power dealing with the administration of public health at pp. 32-33: In 1867 the administration of public health was still in a very primitive stage, the assumption being that health was a private matter and state assistance to protect or improve the health of the citizen was highly exceptional and tolerable only in emergencies such as epidemics, or for purposes of ensuring elementary sanitation in urban communities. Such public health activities as the state did undertake were almost wholly a function of local and municipal governments. It is not strange, therefore, that the British North America Act does not expressly allocate jurisdiction in public health, except that marine hospitals and quarantine (presumably ship quarantine) were assigned to the Dominion, while the province was given jurisdiction over other hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions. But the province was assigned jurisdiction over “generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the Province”, and it is probable that this power was deemed to cover health matters, while the power over “municipal institutions” provided a convenient means for dealing with such matters.

    Dominion rather than by the province". "Dominion jurisdiction over health matters is largely, if not wholly, ancillary to express jurisdiction over other subjects … " Thus historically, at least, the general jurisdiction over public health was seen to lie with the provinces under s. 92(16) “Generally all matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province” although the considerable dimensions of this jurisdiction were unlikely foreseen in 1867.

    This view that the general jurisdiction over health matters is provincial (allowing for a limited federal jurisdiction either ancillary to the express heads of power in s. 91 or the emergency power under peace, order and good government) has prevailed and is now not seriously questioned (see Rinfret v. Pope (1886), 12 Q.L.R. 303 (Que. C.A.), Re Bowack, supra, Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, 1979 CanLII 190 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914, per Estey J.).

    The medical treatment of drug addiction is a bona fide concern of the provincial legislature under its general jurisdiction with respect to public health. The constitutional question to be answered is whether the “dominant or most important characteristic” of the Heroin Treatment Act is the medical treatment of drug addiction.

    Public health squarely falls into the jurisdiction of the Provinces. Great, we know who have to protest. That would be the Premiers, so let’s all head down to the…Canada’s capital to protest the Federal Government who doesn’t have jurisdiction over public health matters outside very specific situations such as border controls and prisons.

    Let’s all be clear that the trucker protest really was just an anti-Trudeau protest.