This research is an enquiry to find an electoral formula that conforms to Canadian constitutional values. Three core values that are pertinent to the issue of electoral systems are identified: democracy, diversity, and efficiency. Each of these core values is divided into different aspects. These aspects will form the backbone of the evaluation of different electoral systems in this work. I will begin with an evaluation of the plurality model of elections, which is currently used in Canada. I will demonstrate that many of the attributes of the current system are not in tune with Canadian constitutional values, in particular with the progressive interpretation that the Supreme Court of Canada has given to the right to vote as enshrined in Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the interpretation of the right to vote will be the main thrust of the constitutional scrutiny in this work, attention will also be given to other pertinent rights such as equality rights, minority rights, and the freedom of expression. Next, I will examine provincial electoral reform initiatives that were initiated in five Canadian provinces. All of these initiatives - three of which were put to referenda and eventually defeated - proposed adopting a variant of proportional representation. Accordingly, I will evaluate proportional systems according to the intended values. I will conclude that these systems have problems of their own and they also cannot strike a fine balance between competing values. In the final stage, I will make a new proposal for elections to the Canadian Parliament. First, I will demonstrate that majority systems are better candidates to attain the envisioned values. Then I will introduce a new variant of the majority model, which I call a majority-preferential two-round variant. I will demonstrate that this new variant will outperform the other variants in the attainment of values if adopted for elections to the House of Commons. Finally, I will argue that the combination of a House of Commons elected through the majority-preferential formula and a proportionally elected Senate will result in a more balanced approach to the relevant constitutional values.

La liberté de circulation et la liberté d’établissement sont reconnues comme fondamentales et intrinsèquement liées au principe de dignité humaine. Pourtant, au nom de la souveraineté nationale, les États imposent des limites à la mobilité humaine. La mobilité de la main-d’œuvre est nécessaire au fonctionnement de l’économie et peut répondre en partie aux enjeux de pénurie de travailleurs. Notre thèse propose une recherche en droit positif visant à circonscrire la portée du droit à la mobilité en droit canadien. De fait, l’article 6 (2) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés reconnaît aux citoyens et résidents permanents au Canada la liberté de circulation et le droit de gagner leur vie. Toutefois, l’alinéa 6 (3) a) de la Charte contient une restriction à ces droits. Les provinces demeurent autorisées à légiférer pour limiter la mobilité, tant qu’elles n’imposent pas de discrimination basée sur la province de résidence. Nous soutenons que dans l’état actuel de la jurisprudence canadienne, le droit à la mobilité n’est pas considéré comme une liberté fondamentale. Pour leur part, les accords de commerce entre les membres de la confédération, sur le plan national, et les accords bilatéraux, régionaux et multilatéraux entre le Canada et ses partenaires contiennent des dispositions encadrant la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre. Lors des négociations constitutionnelles qui ont précédé et suivi le rapatriement de la constitution canadienne en 1982, le développement de l’union économique au pays et l’inclusion du droit à la mobilité ont été au cœur des débats. Or l’analyse des décisions de la Cour suprême du Canada portant sur l’article 6 (2) démontre pourtant que c’est uniquement la non-discrimination sur la base de la province de résidence qui est garantie par la Charte. Les instruments internationaux relatifs aux droits de la personne établissent le droit à la mobilité comme un droit fondamental, mais la recension des différents accords de libre-échange permet de conclure que la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre est favorisée essentiellement pour répondre aux besoins économiques. Le droit à la mobilité ne devrait pas uniquement répondre aux besoins des aléas économiques. Dans cette perspective, la reconnaissance des compétences et des qualifications s’avère impérative pour que le droit à la mobilité soit réellement effectif. / The rights to move, the right to take up residence, and the right to gain a livelihood are recognized as fundamental and are intrinsically linked to the principle of human dignity. Yet, in the name of national sovereignty, states impose limits on human mobility. Labor mobility is a pillar of world economy and can address many aspects of workforce shortages. Our research examines current constraints to, and the scope of, the right to mobility under Canadian law. Indeed, section 6 (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes the right to move and the right to gain a livelihood for citizens and permanent residents of Canada. However, section 6 (3) a) of the Charter contains a limitation on these rights. Provinces remain authorized to limit mobility, as long as they do not discriminate on the basis of province of residence. We argue that, as Canadian jurisprudence currently stands, mobility rights are not considered a fundamental freedom. On the other hand, trade agreements between members of confederation, at the national level, and bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements between Canada and its international partners, contain provisions regulating labor mobility. During the constitutional negotiations that preceded and followed the repatriation of the Constitution Act, 1982, the development of the economic union in Canada and the inclusion of mobility rights were at the heart of the debate. However, an analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions on section 6(2) shows that the Canadian Charter guarantees non-discrimination on the basis of province of residence. International human rights instruments establish the mobility rights as a fundamental right, but a review of various free trade agreements suggests that labor mobility is promoted primarily to meet economic needs. Mobility rights should not uniquely answer economic requirements. Against this background, the recognition of skills and qualifications is imperative to ensure that mobility rights are effective.

Le contexte actuel de mondialisation et de mobilité des citoyens de tous les pays, qui parlent des langues diverses, change la composition culturelle et linguistique de la société québécoise. Cette diversification de la société remet en question la validité de certaines pratiques dans notre système judiciaire et, plus particulièrement, l’accessibilité à la justice pour tous les citoyens. La notion d’accès à la justice implique que tout justiciable possède le droit de participer en pleine égalité aux procédures qui se déroulent devant les tribunaux, ainsi que le droit à un procès équitable. La présente étude examine la pratique de l’un des plus importants tribunaux administratifs du Québec, le Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), division santé et sécurité du travail. Le TAT offre aux travailleurs l’accès à la justice en pleine égalité, et dans le respect des règles de justice naturelle relativement aux demandes touchant leurs droits, mais sans fournir de services gratuits d’interprète aux travailleurs membres d’une minorité linguistique. Il s’agit des travailleurs qui ne parlent pas et ne comprennent pas la langue employée à l’audience, à savoir la langue française ou la langue anglaise. L’auteure examine le droit de ces travailleurs de bénéficier des services gratuits d’un interprète devant le TAT en raison du droit à l’égalité et du droit à un procès équitable garantis par les dispositions de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne. / The current context of globalization and mobility of citizens of all countries, who speak different languages, changes the cultural and linguistic composition of the Quebec society. This diversification of society challenges the validity of certain practices in our justice system, in particular the accessibility of justice for all citizens. The notion of access to justice implies that everyone has the right to participate fully in the proceedings before the courts, as well as the right to a fair trial. This study examines the practice of one of the largest administrative tribunals in Quebec, the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), Health and Safety Division. The TAT provides workers with equal access to justice, complying with the rules of natural justice with respect to claims affecting their rights, but without providing free interpreter services to minority language workers. These are workers who do not speak and do not understand the language used in a hearing, namely French or English. The author examines the right of these workers to free services of an interpreter before the TAT, pursuant to their right to equality and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Cotutelle avec l'Université de Bordeaux en France. / Cette thèse analyse la controverse ayant opposé, en 2020 dans l’affaire Québec inc., les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada au sujet du rôle du droit international et du droit comparé dans l’interprétation de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Elle atteste de la montée en puissance inédite d’une préférence pour une attitude de repli national au détriment d’une valorisation de l’ouverture sur le monde dans l’interprétation des droits et libertés constitutionnels et quasi-constitutionnels des Canadiens. Plus précisément, grâce à l’approche dworkinienne du droit comme pratique interprétative, sont examinées successivement les deux philosophies judicaires concurrentes exprimées en 2020, la compréhension différente par les juges des règles d’interprétation existantes de la Charte ainsi que la pratique judiciaire observable depuis 2014 pour démontrer que la position soutenue par la majorité dans Québec inc. constitue davantage un retournement de situation qu’une suite cohérente de l’œuvre jurisprudentielle écrite depuis 1982 par les juges du plus haut tribunal canadien. Au-delà de la contribution à l’avancement des connaissances s’agissant de l’évolution du rôle du droit international et du droit comparé dans l’interprétation des droits constitutionnels et quasi-constitutionnels des Canadiens, cette recherche doctorale témoigne de la possibilité de voir l’emporter de manière fulgurante des formes de résistance au transnational, y compris dans des contextes juridiques et culturels largement favorables à l’internationalisation et à la mondialisation du travail du juge constitutionnel. Enfin, d’un point de vue méthodologique, elle démontre l’apport, tout comme les limites, de la réalisation d’études juridiques empiriques pour enrichir un discours de connaissance critique sur la pratique judiciaire. / This thesis analyzes the controversy that opposed in 2020, in the Quebec inc. case, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the role of international law and comparative law in the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It attests to the unprecedented rise of a preference for an attitude of national withdrawal to the detriment of a valorization of openness to the world in the interpretation of the constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadians. More precisely, thanks to the Dworkinian approach to law as an interpretative practice, the two competing judicial philosophies expressed in 2020, the different understanding by the judges of the existing rules of interpretation of the Charter as well as the judicial practice observable since 2014 are successively examined to demonstrate that the position supported by the majority in Québec inc. constitutes more of a reversal of the situation than a coherent continuation of the jurisprudential work written since 1982 by the judges of the highest Canadian court. Beyond the contribution to the advancement of knowledge regarding the evolution of the role of international law and comparative law in the interpretation of the constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights of Canadians, this doctoral research demonstrates the possibility of see forms of resistance to the transnational prevail in a dazzling manner, including in legal and cultural contexts largely favorable to the internationalization and globalization of the work of the constitutional judge. Finally, from a methodological point of view, it demonstrates the contribution, as well as the limits, of carrying out empirical legal studies to enrich a discourse of critical knowledge on judicial practice.

No description available.

No description available.

Alors que la protection effective des droits et libertés est souvent conçue comme dépendante de leur garantie juridictionnelle, cette dernière implique une transformation de l'équilibre qui s'établit entre le juge, non élu, et le législateur, représentant du peuple souverain. À travers une analyse pratique des effets du travail juridictionnel sur l'activité législative, tels qu'ils se sont déployés aux États-Unis, au Canada et au Royaume-Uni sur les quinze dernières années, il est possible d'évaluer les conséquences de la consécration de certains droits dans un catalogue opposable par le juge au législateur, en matière d'équilibre entre les pouvoirs législatif et juridictionnel. Si ces trois systèmes, aux traditions constitutionnelles éloignées, disposent chacun de mécanismes spécifiques pour assurer le respect des droits consacrés, plusieurs points de convergence peuvent être mis en lumière. Leur étude sera alors l'occasion d'appréhender dans une perspective renouvelée l'équilibre qui s'établit entre les deux institutions. Elle fera progressivement apparaitre l'idée d'une véritable collaboration du législateur et du juge en matière de protection des droits et libertés dans les démocraties contemporaines / Effective human rights protection is often perceived as being dependent upon their judicial enforcement. However, such a mechanism transforms the relationship between unelected judges and electorally accountable legislators. Through an empirical analysis of the effects of judicial review on legislation and legislative decision-making, in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, during the last fifteen years, the actual impact of the entrenchment of human rights in a written bill of rights will be assessed and evaluated. Even though these three countries have different processes to guarantee the respect of entrenched rights, and despite their long-settled and contrasting traditions, their systems are not as conflicting as it is often thought. This study finally leads to a better understanding of the relationship between judges and legislators in contemporary democracies and underlines the idea of a genuine collaboration of powers

Lobbying should be strictly regulated – that is the major finding of this thesis. The thesis presents many reasons to enact stricter regulations. The principle one being that, as lightly regulated as it is, lobbying is corroding democracy in both Canada and the United States. The thesis opens with a deep investigation of how lobbying works in both countries. There are examples taken from the literature, as well as original qualitative interviews of Canadian lobbyists, former politicians, and officials. Together, these make it clear that there is an intimate relationship between lobbying and campaign financing. The link between the two is sufficiently tight that lobbying and campaign financing should be considered mirrors of each other for the purposes of regulatory design and constitutional jurisprudence. They both have large impacts on government decision-making. Left lightly regulated, lobbying and campaign financing erode the processes of democracy, damage policy-making, and feed an inequality spiral into plutocracy. These have become major challenges of our time. The thesis examines the lobbying regulations currently in place. It finds the regulatory systems of both countries wanting. Since stricter regulation is required to protect democracy and equality, the thesis considers what constitutional constraints, if any, would stand in the way. This, primarily, is a study of how proposed stronger lobbying regulations would interact with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2 (free expression and association rights) and s. 3 (democratic rights). The principal findings are that legislation which restricted lobbying as proposed would probably be upheld by the Canadian court, but struck down by the American court, due to differences in their constitutional jurisprudence. The thesis contends that robust lobbying regulations would align with Canadian Charter values, provide benefits to democracy, improve government decision-making, increase equality, and create more room for citizen voices. The thesis concludes with a set of proposed principles for lobbying reform and an evaluation of two specific reforms: limits on business lobbying and funding for citizen groups. Although the thesis focuses on Canadian and American lobbying regulations, its lessons are broadly applicable to any jurisdiction that is considering regulating lobbying.

This thesis is an examination of whether the “egalitarian model” for political finance that has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada, other Canadian courts and legal scholars and commentators is actually egalitarian and has been applied consistently (in Chapter 2), and whether Canada’s political finance system measures up to the Court’s model (in Chapters 3 and 4), and how it could be changed to comply with a more egalitarian model that would also be ethical in terms of preventing even the appearance of a conflict of interest (in Chapters 6 and 7). Chapter 1 sets out a general theoretical framework for evaluating the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, and I develop and set out a more egalitarian model in Chapter 5. In the Chapter 8 conclusion, I summarize the findings and propose structural and positive Charter rights court cases as a way forward, given that the platforms federal politicians and political parties from the past few elections, and the reports of parliamentary committees, have not called for the most of the changes I propose are needed to make the system more egalitarian. The thesis addresses political finance broadly defined as money, property, use of property, gifts, services, favours and other benefits and advantages provided to nomination contestants, election candidates and political party leadership contestants, electoral district associations, political parties, politicians and their staff during election campaign periods and also during the time period between elections, including support provided by “third-party” interest groups, lobbyists and other individuals, and by media outlets. In Chapter 3, I examine the rules that apply to each of these political actors in the areas of registration, donations and loans, spending, public subsidies and disclosure (including auditing), including a separate section on the role of media and social media. Given that political systems include providers (whether as contractors or donors) of money, property and the use of property (including gifts and other benefits and advantages), and services (including favours) to politicians, and given that providers could be lobbyists, I also examine in Chapter 4 the rules concerning gifts, favours and other benefits and relations between voters, lobbyists and politicians, and concerning the conflicts of interest that can be caused by these activities. Other than disclosure and auditing, I do not cover enforcement measures or systems in any of the areas. However, I do note at various points in the thesis that, as several studies and history have shown clearly, effective enforcement measures, policies and practices are key to ensure compliance with such rules. The main contentions that I make are: that the key principles of the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model have not been consistently upheld by the Court and other Canadian courts, that Canada’ federal political finance system does not fulfill the Court’s egalitarian model, and that several changes are needed to make the model and the system more egalitarian, only a few of which have been addressed by Canadian courts and scholars to date. These contentions counter the claim made in the Court’s rulings, and by many scholars and commentators, that Canada’s political finance system has developed and is based on an egalitarian model. In Chapters 5 through 7, I develop a more egalitarian model and set out specific proposed changes to make Canada’s systems more egalitarian, both in theory and in practice, within the framework of a democratic good government political system (meaning a system with separation of powers, elections, human rights protections, rule of law etc.) and a mixed market economy with both public sector institutions and private sector businesses, unions and other organizations (cooperatives, non-profit, religious organizations etc.). Both the model and many of the specific proposed measures should also be applicable in other jurisdictions with different political systems and economic systems. The framework of 19 standards for a more egalitarian model that I develop in Chapter 5 is based mainly on John Rawls’ theory of justice, but modified and expanded to incorporate critiques of Rawls’ theory, other legal principles and democratic good government theories, international standards, government ethics case law, behavioural psychology studies, and evidence of the public’s expectations. The 201 proposals I make in Chapters 6 and 7 for specific changes to the rules of Canada’s current federal political finance system (again, broadly defined), are based on the model, measures from various jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere, and international standards. I am not claiming that these changes would definitely result in “better” or more “public interest” policy-making decisions, however that would be determined. I am only contending that the framework I develop is more egalitarian than the Supreme Court’s model, and that the rule changes I suggest would make the political finance, gifts, favours, conflict of interest and lobbying systems align with the more egalitarian model I propose. I primarily use the doctrinal research methodology by examining scholarly research and, given I also examine aspects of the laws of Canadian provinces and municipalities, and other countries, I also deploy some aspects of the comparative methodology (most fully when comparing Canada’s federal rules to Quebec’s rules, and somewhat when comparing Canada’s rules to the U.S. and U.K. rules). The research results from these sources inform the conclusions I set out in my thesis. The thesis advances knowledge in the following areas: 1. It is the first complete evaluation of the federal Canadian political finance, gifts-favours-benefits, conflict of interest and lobbying rules and systems in their current state as of May 2023, based on the findings of extensive new research into key parts of these systems; 2. It sets out the first comprehensive analysis of how the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model has been applied by the Court and other courts inconsistently, in ways that do not comply with the model; 3. It sets out the first analysis of how Canada’s political finance statutory rules, again defined broadly to include rules that apply to donations, loans, gifts, services, favours and other benefits, lobbying and conflicts of interest, do not comply with the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, based in part on new statistical research set out in 28 charts, and; 4. It sets out a new theoretical framework based on 19 standards, and a comprehensive set of 201 innovative proposals for changes to make Canada’s political finance rules (again defined broadly) more egalitarian, and more ethical in terms of preventing conflicts of interest. Five comprehensive studies of key parts of the political finance, ethics and lobbying systems are also proposed to gather key information needed to inform the design of some of the 201 proposed changes. Eight structural and positive Charter rights cases are also proposed to challenge current rules that do not comply with the egalitarian model.