POGG and Treaties: The Role of International Agreements in National Concern Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s international treaty obligations have featured prominently in Privy Council and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on Parliament’s power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada (POGG). How treaties ought properly to be used in determining Parliament’s POGG jurisdiction is a constitutionally fraught question. The federal executive cannot be permitted to extend Parliament’s legislative jurisdiction by making promises to foreign states. Yet the existence of treaty obligations is undoubtedly relevant to the question of whether a given subject has become a matter of national concern. In the upcoming Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act references, the Supreme Court of Canada will confront this problem again. This article seeks to explain how courts may properly use international agreements in POGG cases.\nLes obligations du Canada en vertu des traités internationaux ont occupé une place importante dans la jurisprudence du Conseil privé et de la Cour suprême du Canada concernant le pouvoir du Parlement d’adopter des lois pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada. La question de savoir comment les traités doivent être utilisés pour déterminer la compétence du Parlement en ces matières est une question d’ordre constitutionnel. L’exécutif fédéral ne peut être autorisé à étendre la compétence législative du Parlement en faisant des promesses à des États étrangers. Pourtant, l’existence d’obligations conventionnelles est sans aucun doute pertinente pour déterminer si un sujet donné est devenu un sujet d’intérêt national. La Cour suprême du Canada sera à nouveau confrontée à ce problème lors des prochains renvois relatifs à la Loi sur la tarification de la pollution causée par les gaz à effet de serre. Le présent article cherche à expliquer comment les tribunaux peuvent utiliser correctement les accords internationaux dans les affaires relatives aux lois pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".