This thesis focuses on provincial reactions to the Supreme Court decision on 5 June 2005, Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). In this decision, the Court struck down the government of Québec’s ban on private insurance for publicly-insured services, on the grounds it violated the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, while the decision on the Canadian Charter ended in a 3:3 tie with one abstention. It is the purpose of this research to examine the reactions of each provincial government to the decision in an attempt to understand why each province responded in its chosen manner. In order to make this determination, four hypotheses were constructed in order to test four separate variables: court interference, current law, ideology, and political calculation. These hypotheses were tested against provincial reactions in the media, legislatures, court documents, and E-mail administered questionnaires. This research finds that each hypothesis had some success in predicting provincial reactions to the decision, with a government’s current law and ideology proving to be the most accurate predictors. Based on the evidence gathered, three conclusions were arrived at: first, a government’s law and its ideology will often predict how a government will behave; second, that governments are open to Supreme Court decisions in the area of health care, and, finally, that if provincial governments were to make the decision to increase the role of the private sector in health care, political leaders would require public opinion be in support of such a decision rather than act solely on an ideological predisposition to greater private sector involvement.

This thesis focuses on provincial reactions to the Supreme Court decision on 5 June 2005, Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). In this decision, the Court struck down the government of Québec’s ban on private insurance for publicly-insured services, on the grounds it violated the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, while the decision on the Canadian Charter ended in a 3:3 tie with one abstention. It is the purpose of this research to examine the reactions of each provincial government to the decision in an attempt to understand why each province responded in its chosen manner. In order to make this determination, four hypotheses were constructed in order to test four separate variables: court interference, current law, ideology, and political calculation. These hypotheses were tested against provincial reactions in the media, legislatures, court documents, and E-mail administered questionnaires. This research finds that each hypothesis had some success in predicting provincial reactions to the decision, with a government’s current law and ideology proving to be the most accurate predictors. Based on the evidence gathered, three conclusions were arrived at: first, a government’s law and its ideology will often predict how a government will behave; second, that governments are open to Supreme Court decisions in the area of health care, and, finally, that if provincial governments were to make the decision to increase the role of the private sector in health care, political leaders would require public opinion be in support of such a decision rather than act solely on an ideological predisposition to greater private sector involvement.

La mise à l'agenda est l'une des étapes fondamentales du processus d'élaboration des politiques publiques. Dans le système politique canadien, les problèmes publics sont souvent inscrits simultanément ou successivement sur les agendas judicaire, médiatique et politique. Étant donné que les médias jouent un rôle important dans la vie politique canadienne, nous avons examiné leur disposition à refléter les agendas judiciaire et politique. Pour ce faire, nous avons analysé 415 articles publiés dans les quotidiens La Presse, Le Devoir et The Gazette entre 1997 et 2006 portants sur l'affaire Chaoulli. Nos résultats indiquent d'une part que l'espace médiatique se fait le prolongement de l'agenda judiciaire, surtout lorsqu'un litige est porté en Cour suprême. D'autre part, puisque la presse écrite tend à donner la parole à une diversité d'acteurs et à rapporter avec équilibre les positions en jeu, il s'avère que l'agenda médiatique est une extension de l'agenda politique. Il ressort ainsi que les médias contribuent à la vie démocratique, car ils publicisent l'activité judiciaire et agissent comme un forum de la délibération publique.