EDMONTON – The legal counsels for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Blackfoot Confederacy each laid out their calls for a judge to reassess Bill 14 and to shut down Stay Free Alberta's independence petition, arguing that the Chief Electoral Officer misinterpreted the bill when issuing a second petition. Athabasca Chipewyan's legal counsel told Justice Shaina Leonard that the CEO erred in granting a second Alberta independence petition to Stay Free Alberta leader Mitch Sylvester in January, after Justice Collin Feasby squashed an initial petition on the topic. Feasby shut down the petition in December after he ruled that an independent Alberta and the subsequent international borders created by it would violate First Nations mobility rights found in Treaties and divide up First Nation lands that span across provincial borders. Prior to Fesby's decision, however, the UCP introduced Bill 14 and appeared to nullify the ruling by removing the stipulation that petition and referendum questions cannot violate the Canadian Constitution. The CEO at claimed that this decision and other amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act under Bill 14 required them to approve a petition for Alberta independence when Sylvestre reapplied for one, despite Feasby's ruling. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Blackfoot Confederacy each filed separate claims for a judicial review of Bill 14 in January, listing list Sylvester, the Government of Alberta, and the CEO as defendants, aiming to shut down the new petition. .Lawyer Kevin Hille argued against the CEO's possession on Wednesday, claiming the decision did not take into account the context and intentions behind Bill 14, and said the UCP did not intend for a petition on a topic already deemed unconstitutional by a judge to carry forward. Hille claimed the UCP could not have had this intent because they introduced the bill before Feasby's ruling, so there was no unconstitutional question to be put forward yet. He pointed out their intent to expedite future petitions and defer constitutional challenges and other legal procedures that would bog down processes following the referendum, if needed. Hille argued that had the CEO properly interpreted the intent and meaning of Bill 14, they would have understood that they were not required to grant another Alberta independence petition. Thus, the groups called on Leonard to intervene, read down the legislation, and squash the Alberta independence petition by applying the proper intent and meaning of Bill 14's implementation. .Alternatively, James Shields, another Athabasca Chipewyan lawyer, said if Leonard leans towards the CEO's interpretation of Bill 14, then it brings into question the constitutionality of Bill 14, which required the CEO to ignore Feasby's decision. According to Shields, requiring the CEO to approve a petition on a topic that had already been determined to be unconstitutional and a violation of Treaty rights forced them to ignore their duty to the Crown. Shields argued that the CEO and Government of Alberta have an obligation under the honour of the Crown to uphold and protect First Nations Treaty rights, including the required diligence to do so, which involves staving off potential rights infringements. He said the current measures under Bill 14 that the UCP claim will protect Treaty and other constitutional rights from infringement are inefficient because they only come into effect after a referendum has been held. To that point, the counsels claimed the UCP have lost their right to tell the First Nations to "trust them" when they say they will not impose the results of an unconstitutional referendum, due to their inability to be reliable and actively protect their rights. .Counsels for the Blackfoot Confederacy argued that Bill 14 is unconstitutional because the UCP's efforts to override the unwritten constitutional rules of constitutionality and the rule of law, in favour of democracy, are unconstitutional. They said the UCP claimed to be seeking to expedite the process through Bill 14, but was really trying to circumvent judicial oversight and other constitutionally protected rights. As for the question of whether Alberta independence would be constitutional, the lawyers argued that Feasby had already ruled that it would be. The confederacy's counsel later said that all Treaty rights would be violated because there is no commitment or measures to ensure that the same rights the First Nations have in Canada would transfer to an independent Alberta. .Alberta First Nations members and other opponents to Alberta independence gathered outside of the courthouse on Wednesday while the hearing was unfolding inside. These individuals gathered to protest Alberta independence and make a statement in favour of First Nations rights. "Basically, we're trying to educate the rest of Canadian society that we are people," said Tracey Mclean, a councillor in Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and one of the individuals protesting. "We are the first peoples here on this territory, and we are reminding them and educating them that we are not a minority group. We are a very important piece of the puzzle when it comes to dictating what happens in Alberta territory on the land."Wednesday was the second day of a potential four-day series of hearings on Alberta independence at the Court King's Bench in Edmonton. On Tuesday, Leonard heard Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation's application for an injunction to halt the petition, which would remain in effect until a final decision on their Bill 14 lawsuit is made.Blackfoot Confederacy's counsels are scheduled to make additional arguments on Thursday at 9:30 a.m., before counsels for Sylvester, the Government of Alberta, and the CEO make defence in the afternoon. Time has been allotted for the hearings to carry over to Friday, and it is expected to do so.
