The Supreme Court’s Understanding of Federalism: Efficiency at the Expense of Diversity

This paper is an examination of the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of federalism since constitutional repatriation in 1982. It argues that the lure of centralist efficiency is overpowering a fundamentally important part of our federal order: regionalism. The author contends that changes made by the Court to certain fundamental concepts of Canadian constitutional law now provide Parliament with greater latitude than before in the exercise of its legislative powers. According to the author, these changes are disturbing because they are structured so as to preclude consideration of the legitimate concerns of regional polities. Furthermore, he argues that the Court has reinforced the central government's power to regulate the economy, including intraprovincial matters affecting trade, by resorting to highly functional tests that emphasize economic efficiency over other criteria. This, he claims, makes it more difficult to invoke legitimate regional interests that would lead to duplication, overlapping and even, in the eyes of some, inefficiency. The author the focuses on the Court's treatment of environmental protection in an attempt to show the tension between the Court's desire to use a functional approach and the need to recognize regional interests. Finally, through an examination of recent case law, he attemps to demonstrate that the Court's dominant perspective remains functional despite its endorsement of a more community-oriented undestanding of federalism in Secession Reference. If the Court chooses to proceed in this manner, it will alienate regional polities and may encourage them to choose more radical means of asserting their differences. Further, the author argues that strict adherence to the functional effectiveness approach will undermine the very values that federalism is meant to promote.

Impoverishment of The Law by The Law: A Critique of The Attorney General's Vision of The Rule of Law and The Federal Principle

This brief article is devoted to a critique of the arguments put forward by the Attorney General of Canada in connection with the Reference concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec (hereinafter, "the Reference"). This critique will not be presented from a plainly positivist standpoint. On the contrary, I will be examining in particular (1) how the approach taken by the Attorney General impoverished the legal concepts of the rule of law anf federalism, both of which were, however, central to her submission; and, in a more general way, (2) how the excessively detailed analysis of constitutional texts contributes to the impoverishment of the symbolic function of the law, however essential that dimension may be to its legitimacy. My criticism will take into account the reasons for judgement delivered recently by the Supreme Court in the Reference.

Federal Constitutionalism and Aboriginal Difference

The author outlines a new legal approach, which he labels federal constitutionalism, to the question of aboriginal difference in Canada. This approach has the potential to open up more fruitful avenues for the resolution of aboriginal law issues than either the “frozen rights” approach currently adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada or the treaty federalism approach, which posits that treaties should be used to resolve all differences between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. The author outlines the difficulties inherent in both the frozen rights and treaty federalism approaches. Federal constitutionalism, in contrast, draws its vitality from an organic understanding of Canada’s constitutional experience. It would allow aboriginal peoples to be seen as federal actors who have historically shaped the Canadian federation. Federal constitutionalism is a multi-faceted approach that would permit aboriginal questions to be addressed using the federal principle, thereby allowing the legal focus to move away from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Aboriginal peoples would be able to exercise the rights of sovereignty over their own internal affairs, while individual aboriginals could participate directly in federal and provincial governments without having to proceed through the intermediary of aboriginal representatives. Federal constitutionalism would allow aboriginal peoples a guaranteed sphere of autonomy, while permitting recognition of their historical interdependence with non-aboriginal peoples.

Les tribunaux à l'ère numérique : création du marché canadien du dépôt électronique

Partout dans le monde, des tribunaux empruntent l’autoroute de l’information et choisissent le dépôt électronique comme moyen de faire évoluer les systèmes judiciaires. Certains tribunaux canadiens ont rallié le mouvement, mais la plupart se contentent pour l’instant d’observer, risquant de se voir claquer au nez la porte du cybermonde. Les obstacles invoqués sont divers et vont du manque d’argent et de ressources techniques à l’absence d’une masse critique de dépôts justifiant l’investissement initial nécessaire pour faire entrer le tribunal au XXIe siècle. La Cour fédérale, la Cour suprême et quelques partenaires du secteur privé étudient un modèle de nature à éliminer certains de ces obstacles, qui permettrait de numériser l’information qui circule entre les parties à un litige, leurs avocats et les tribunaux, grâce à la technologie sécurisée de l’Internet, fondée sur le Web. Le présent rapport expose la perspective des praticiens et énonce les avantages, les difficultés et les risques associés au modèle.

Encadrement provincial des valeurs mobilières : à la recherche d’un modèle amélioré

Mise en garde : Ce mémoire a été réalisé grâce au soutien financier du Fonds d’éducation et de saine gouvernance de l'Autorité des marchés financiers. Les informations, opinions et avis exprimés n'engagent que la responsabilité de Marie-Annick Laurendeau.

The Federal Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program: Outcome on Labor Income.

Rapport de recherche

The effect of asymetric preferences on the federal funds rate.

Rapport de recherche

L'evaluation de la banque federal de developpement.

Rapport de recherche

Red State, Blue State: Examining Federal Transfers to the States, 1983-2004.

Rapport de recherche

Driedger's 'Modern Principle' at the Supreme Court of Canada: Interpretation, Justification, Legitimization

Un résumé en français est également disponible

Regulatory History Material as an Extrinsic Aid to Interpretation: An Empirical Study on the Use of RIAS by the Federal Court of Canada

Since 1986, the Canadian Public Administration is required to analyze the socio-economic impact of new regulatory requirements or regulatory changes. To report on its analysis, a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) is produced and published in the Canada Gazette with the proposed regulation to which it pertains for notice to, and comments by, interested parties. After the allocated time for comments has elapsed, the regulation is adopted with a final version of the RIAS. Both documents are again published in the Canada Gazette. As a result, the RIAS acquires the status of an official public document of the Government of Canada and its content can be argued in courts as an extrinsic aid to the interpretation of a regulation. In this paper, an analysis of empirical findings on the uses of this interpretative tool by the Federal Court of Canada is made. A sample of decisions classified as unorthodox show that judges are making determinations on the basis of two distinct sets of arguments built from the information found in a RIAS and which the author calls “technocratic” and “democratic”. The author argues that these uses raise the general question of “What makes law possible in our contemporary legal systems”? for they underline enduring legal problems pertaining to the knowledge and the acceptance of the law by the governed. She concludes that this new interpretive trend of making technocratic and democratic uses of a RIAS in case law should be monitored closely as it may signal a greater change than foreseen, and perhaps an unwanted one, regarding the relationship between the government and the judiciary.