Chapter 11 of NAFTA and the Provinces - Will the Constitutional Question Be Asked
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's unique version of federalism has resulted in an uncertain division of powers between federal and provincial governments.International trade law is among the areas of law that have been significantly impacted by such uncertainty.An important question that remains unanswered today is whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to implement international trade treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA"), into domestic law so that the treaties will have force against the whole of Canada (including the provinces).The Labour Conventions Case provides some guidance on this question; but considering its vintage and the facts on which it was based, the answer remains uncertain.'The recent expropriation of the assets of AbitibiBowater by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador lead AbitibiBowater to launch a dispute under Chapter 11 of NAFTA. 2 The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did not make any attempt to settle the dispute under the dispute resolution process outlined in Chapter 11.Instead, the federal government paid out a settlement.With the federal government having to pick up the tab in a NAFTA dispute arising out of purely provincial act, the hand of the federal government may finally have been forced to take legislative action.A straightforward approach would be the promulgation of legislation implementing NAFTA into domestic law.To help ensure the provinces will be held accountable if they violate Chapter 11, the federal government could also enact a provision, as part of the implementing legislation, stipulating that provinces will be held liable for such violations.Legislation that implements NAFTA and imposes liability on provinces for violations thereof, however, will likely be met with challenges by the provinces.As a result, the Supreme Court of Canada may have to revisit the Labour Conventions Case and opine .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".