Une source paradoxale du droit constitutionnel canadien: Les ententes intergouvernementales (A Paradoxical Source of Canadian Constitutional Law: Intergovernmental Agreements)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Les ententes intergouvernementales (EIG) conclues entre partenaires d’une federation font partie integrante du destin federal. Ces accords se comptent par centaines et couvrent la quasi-totalite des domaines de politiques publiques. Rarement sources directes de droit constitutionnel formel, de nombreuses EIG ont neanmoins pour effet (voire, comme objectif) de transformer le paysage constitutionnel et les rapports tant politiques que juridiques au sein d’une federation. Dans une premiere partie, l’auteure explore plusieurs facettes de ce role « para-constitutionnel » rempli par de nombreuses EIG au Canada. Une seconde partie est consacree a l’approche jurisprudentielle souvent paradoxale – voire erratique – reservee aux EIG. D’une part, la Cour supreme du Canada defend une vision dualiste classique du federalisme et de la souverainete parlementaire, qui cadre mal avec la realite de l’enchevetrement de l’exercice des competences. Dans ce contexte, les EIG se retrouvent tout au bas de la hierarchie des normes formelles (voire en sont exclues). Ce statut est contredit par leur effectivite incontestable dans la vie de la federation. D’autre part, lorsque le statut juridique des EIG ne fait pas l’objet d’une contestation directe, les tribunaux leur accordent – souvent implicitement - une force normative extremement elevee, ce qui peut avoir des consequences inquietantes en termes d’imputabilite, de transparence et de clarte des voies de recours, notamment pour les tiers. Quoique bienveillant, ce type d’aveuglement volontaire de la part du pouvoir judiciaire contribue egalement a transformer, de maniere indirecte et implicite, le paysage constitutionnel canadien.English Abstract: Intergovernmental arrangements between federal partners are an essential part of federal destiny. There are hundreds of these types of agreements, which include almost all public policy domains. Although they rarely constitute direct sources of formal constitutional law, many intergovernmental agreement have the effect (and perhaps the objective) of transforming the formal constitutional landscape as well as the political and legal relations within a federation. In the first section, the author examines various aspects of the “para-constitutional” role of numerous intergovernmental agreements.The second section is devoted to the often paradoxical – even erratic – jurisprudential approach reserved to intergovernmental arrangements. On the one hand, the Supreme Court of Canada supports a classic dualist vision of federalism and parliamentary sovereignty which is incompatible with the reality of entanglements in jurisdictional exercise. In this context, intergovernmental arrangements find themselves at the bottom of the hierarchy of formal norms, if not excluded. This status is challenged by their unquestionable effectiveness in the federation. On the other hand, when the legal status of intergovernmental agreements is challenged, courts grant them – often implicitly – an extremely high normative force, which can have troubling effects in terms of accountability, transparency and access to judicial review, especially for third parties. This voluntary blindness from the judicial branch contributes to transform, indirectly and implicitly, the Canadian constitutional landscape.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".