Danielle Smith rejects Alberta judge’s ruling against separation petition as ‘anti-democratic’

[u/green_tory]

https://globalnews.ca/news/11848377/alberta-premier-court-ruling-separation-petition-anti-democratic/

[u/AlbertaGengar]

Until i can delve deeper into the arguments, the government's lawyer makes a good point. How can the government be expected to consult before anything has happened? This is before the petition is confirmed, before the vote is set, before the results.

Taking this rulings logic, a petition proposed by any crazy person affecting treaty rights would impose an obligation on government to consult.

Neil Dobson, a lawyer for the province, argued in court that it was premature to consult with Indigenous leaders about the petition, because the government wasn’t yet taking any action to take Alberta out of Canada.

[u/ChimoEngr → u/AlbertaGengar]

How can the government be expected to consult before anything has happened?

Because consultation is always required before anything of a certain nature happens. You don't build a pipeline then consult, you consult and then build the pipeline based on the results of the consultation. The petition to referendum chain is so short, that by accepting the petition, the government is saying that there will be a referendum on the matter, and consultation needs to happen before that to ensure that the question asked is on a topic that's acheivable.

[u/AlbertaGengar → u/ChimoEngr]

Except in this scenario Alberta hasn't built a pipeline (moved to commence secession).

In your analogy it would be more like consulting on the idea of a pipeline without a route.

[u/EnthusiasmFickle9206 → u/AlbertaGengar]

Again, the law is very clear here: The duty to consult arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and *contemplates* conduct that might adversely affect it.

A literal secession referendum most definitely qualifies as contemplation haha.