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.

Immigrant Returns to Education and Experience: Analysis of Skill Discounting in Canada.

Rapport de recherche

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

Rapport de recherche

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.