In the controversial world of politics, actors sometimes find themselves in an impasse, unable to move forward between their contradictory visions. At such times, courts may be asked to mediate between different levels of government by providing constitutional or legislative advice. These scenarios can become perilous as courts must provide insight into policy issues without departing from their jurisdiction. However, whatever their dangers, I would say that the reference instrument has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing political chaos. In the Repatriation Reference and the Quebec Secession Reference, the courts ++++---In order to illustrate the importance of removal cases in the Canadian system, despite their shortcomings, I will first examine the history of the consultative mechanism in a perspective to explain the role of the courts. I will then examine the constitutional perspectives adopted by the courts in several leading cases, notably the Repatriation Reference and the Quebec Cessession Reference. In the following section, I will explore how the courts' opinions in these cases have impacted Canadian federalism in order to determine the constitutionality of their advice. Finally, I will explore the contingencies of a system without reference cases to demonstrate why they are so important. Attention will also be paid to the United States reference system in order to provide a comparative view. I will argue that in remand cases, the Supreme Court plays an important mediating role between political actors, but it must tread carefully as these are perilous terrains where suggestions can cross into political territory. – Indeed, political actors can abuse the system, >re...... middle of paper ......go through the power of another government Canada would have undermined the legitimacy of its governance, which would have a bad start indicate. Indeed, a unilateral decision would result in crushing discredit that would result from using them as a “mere rubber stamp”. Indeed, Russell argues that the risk inherent in the Court's decision was that if an agreement was not reached, "the federal government could have exercised its legal option to proceed unilaterally", which would have been the worst "way to "(Her Majesty's Government) did not want to be accused of interference in any way. HMG could help and if, for example, lines of Indians knocked on the door of number 10, the response would be that it was up to Canada to decide its future and not the British government;..”