I don't understand the scope of this legislation. Does it refer only to people living on a reserve, or to people of certain ancestry living at large?
If it's people on a reserve, then, yes, that's a federal authority, but if it applies to people living in provincial society, isn't that provincial authority? Section 91(24) doesn't give the federal government carte blanche, because section 91 applies only to matters outside provincial authority.
I was looking forward to seeing your post on this matter so thanks for getting it out. I also wonder if you could say whether this case can be used to argue other federal devolution of authority like for example regulation of a fishery (Marshall 1999)? Rights are acknowledged there but regulation is still the authority of the DFO and this continues to be a huge area of disagreement in New Brunswick...leading to disputes and violence for 25 yrs now. Thanks again. Appreciate your work very much.
I don't understand the scope of this legislation. Does it refer only to people living on a reserve, or to people of certain ancestry living at large?
If it's people on a reserve, then, yes, that's a federal authority, but if it applies to people living in provincial society, isn't that provincial authority? Section 91(24) doesn't give the federal government carte blanche, because section 91 applies only to matters outside provincial authority.
Thanks for the clarity on a sometimes confusing Supreme Court decisions, the road ahead seems clear for Indigenous childcare and custody now.
I was looking forward to seeing your post on this matter so thanks for getting it out. I also wonder if you could say whether this case can be used to argue other federal devolution of authority like for example regulation of a fishery (Marshall 1999)? Rights are acknowledged there but regulation is still the authority of the DFO and this continues to be a huge area of disagreement in New Brunswick...leading to disputes and violence for 25 yrs now. Thanks again. Appreciate your work very much.