Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
But this isn't a freedom of speech issue, as much as you want it to be. And if you really want it to be then bring it to court. You're a lawyer.
|
This is exactly the point. You have no background in this. I actually have a body of knowledge as to how constitutional law and charter challenges work, and you've decided you're right and you know better on this point than I do? Please, ask yourself, what are the
odds of that? And
I'm the one being arrogant here? Seriously, I look back on those posts where I was really just trying to make it as clear as possible that you're simply wrong on this, and sure, maybe I could have worded them more diplomatically. Sorry about that. You know I don't think you're dumb. But just trust me on this one.
And of course I'm not taking it to Court unless the film company hires me to, and that seems pretty unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
God you're arrogant. Have at it. If you can't answer the question as to what the purpose of Parks Canada being able to grant permission for use of its protected lands, other than to adhere to the criteria set out in it's charter, then don't answer it. If you think some part of the charter matters and others don't, explain why.
|
I didn't answer because SebC's question is relevant here... are you conflating the constitution of Canada with a Parks policy document? The Parks charter is just a statement of principle. It has no binding authority as far as I'm aware. The purpose of Parks Canada being able to grant permission for use of Park land is a matter of delegation of Ministerial authority from the Minister of the Environment. That Minister has only the powers granted to the office under statute. So there may or may not be a law or regulation stating what the permitted commercial uses of the park are, and the power to ensure that those are complied with in the process of granting or denying applications for use of Park resources would be delegated to someone. It's administrative law, it gets technical - if this actually did go to Court, it would likely be challenged on multiple grounds. In the event that discretionary application of authority conflicts with the exercise of a Charter right, the legislation is often read down so as to exclude the application of that authority in the context.