Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂

Alberta chapter of the @ne0liberal project. Weed stock AIMCo. Full-yolo policy advocate. Big tent party at Stampede.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@theVonSchmidt @jkenney Keep thinking that.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@kaclk @Scott_dLB The SCC didn’t decide the NBCA decision was right or wrong, they just declined to hear the case as they didn’t view it warranted review.

Different provincial courts of appeal (and lower courts) have varying levels of persuasiveness. ONCA is more persuasive than NBCA or MBCA.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@theVonSchmidt @jkenney There’s that magical thinking that just ignores away all the practical hurdles.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@Scott_dLB @kaclk A New Brunswick decision is not particularly persuasive in most other provinces courts, for what it’s worth.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@theVonSchmidt @jkenney There’s nothing in s 125 that mandates an agreement be made and 125(3) is pretty clear that the transit state is permitted to protect their own rights and interests.

This is not nearly as simple as you and other separatists dream it to be.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@theVonSchmidt @jkenney You’re conveniently missing the point that Canada is under no obligation to give an independent Alberta unfettered access or whatever infrastructure they want.

It’s by agreement.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@theVonSchmidt @jkenney You should look at Bolivia v Chile 2018 ICJ.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@DavidMcLA @UCPCaucus Notably one of those steps was a reason Justice Leonard found rendered the separatist petition invalid.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@theVonSchmidt @jkenney You’re quoting s 125(1) of the UN Law of the Sea while conveniently ignoring what s 125(2) says (hint: it says tidewater access is by agreement - ask Bolivia how that’s been going for them).

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@CarsonJerema @onedery What part of the finding that the Elections CEO erred in law in his interpretation of the transition provisions within the Amended CIA screams “ideologically caputred”?

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@peteremcc @AndyStern_mps You’re leaving out the other part of the test Peter and you know this.

Does the government have actual or constructive knowledge that a petition on education funding may impact treaty rights?

Because it’s obvious that the test is met for a separation petition.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@boehmerB @TheBreakdownAB Criticizing the ruling is questioning Leonard J’s finding that the CEO is a legislative officer and thus exercising Crown authority.

Screaming “Trudeau judges are all bad and it’s Ottawa telling us how to do things” is not criticism by any reasonable definition.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@peteremcc @boehmerB He’s not.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

This isn’t even close to what the decision says on DtC issue (which was one of THREE separate grounds quashing the petition).

DtC is triggered when government action *might* impact a treaty right and the government knows. Building a road is not the same as a vote on separation.

[Karla Treadway | Host Sovereign Sphere Podcast @thesovereignceo]

Alberta will be ungovernable soon if this keeps up.
No treaty rights were infringed upon.
This was an unlawful decision.
You do not need to consult with First Nations on a citizen led initiative.

New episode uploading now with @echipiuk

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@Scott_dLB @kaclk The precedent isn’t that broadly referendums trigger the DtC, it’s only when a referendum (like one on separating) has the potential to impact treaty rights and the government knows it might.

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

“The Constitution of Canada requires the government to consult indigenous groups when they have knowledge that their actions might impact treaty rights, just as Jeff Rath successfully argued for in Mikisew v Canada, 2005 SCC 69.”

Come on Jamie, you’re better than this.

[Jamie Sarkonak @sarkonakj]

"The Constitution of Canada forbids you from asking the general public a question without first running it past indigenous people" is not going to go over well

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

Any 1L with 3/4 of a semester of constitutional law knows the test for duty to consult and knows it absolutely applies to separation.

[The Breakdown @TheBreakdownAB]

When asked how far she would go…

Smith claimed that she wanted a permissive approach where any subject could be discussed…

And added she isn’t sure that Duty to Consult applies to separation.

As if two judges hadn’t recently ruled it does.

#abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

(Narrator or anyone with a good grasp of administrative law) - it is actually not insane.

[Peter McCaffrey @peteremcc]

This is actually insane.

The government’s duty to consult First Nations applies to actual decisions (ie: implementing the result of a successful referendum) not anytime citizens collect signatures on any issue.

This just proves separatists’ point.

https://t.co/fNUPuw44BU

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

Jeff you were fucking lead counsel on Mikisew v Canada how did you not realize there was a duty to consult.

[Jeffrey Rath @JeffreyRWRath]

OFFICIAL STAY FREE ALBERTA STATEMENT CONCERNING THE RECENT JUDICIAL DECISION ON THE STAYFREE ALBERTA INDEPENDENCE PETITION :

“We disagree fundamentally with the decision which appears on its face to violate principles of natural justice and contain numerous errors of law.

We have been instructed to prepare and file the appropriate appellate documents.”

[Neoliberal Alberta 🌐🛢️🐂 @neoliberalAB]

@Tony__Clark It could be a costs award arising from the litigation.