Suchergebnisse

From behind the close doors of Meech Lake comes this insider's account of the negotiations that put Canada's future on the line. Patrick J. Monahan was there throughout the negotiations that began in the fall of 1986 and culminated in the week-long meeting of First Ministers in June 1990, after which the accord failed to be ratified. He tells a compelling story of deals and dealmakers, compromise and confrontation. Many in English Canada believe that at Meech Lake the federal government sold out to the provinces, especially to Quebec, and that by conducting negotiations behind closed doors the government acted illegitimately. Not so, says Monahan. Far from being a sell-out, Meech represented a reasonable compromise between competing positions. Going back to the initial position put forward by the Bourassa government in 1986 he shows how that position was modified in the course of the negotiations. And closed doors, he argues, were essential in ensuring effective bargaining. There could have been no agreement without them. Now, in the middle of 1991, Canada is once again negotiating its future existence. There are vital lessons to be learned from the Meech Lake round; Monahan articulates some of those lessons, and indicates how they ought to figure in the current process. Canadians, he argues, ignore them at their country's peril

Intro -- TABLE OF CONTENTS -- FOREWORD -- PREFACE -- PART ONE: INTRODUCTION -- PART TWO: THE FRAMEWORK AND INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT -- PART THREE: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE -- PART FOUR: THE COURTS AND CANADIAN FEDERALISM -- PART FIVE: THE CHARTER AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS -- PART SIX: CONCLUSION -- GLOSSARY OF TERMS -- CONSTITUTION ACTS 1867 TO 1982 -- TABLE OF CASES -- INDEX -- ABOUT THE AUTHOR -- CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION -- CHAPTER 2: CANADA'S CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT BEFORE 1867

The concept of the "public interest" is the foundational principle that guides and structures the special role of government lawyers. This public interest role is derived from a number of constitutional and statutory sources but, in Ontario, it finds its foundation in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, which provides that the Attorney "shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law". This responsibility to uphold and advance the rule of law falls not just to the Attorney but to all government lawyers who act on his or her behalf. What does this mean in practical terms for government lawyers on a day-to-day basis? in the view of Ontario's Deputy Attorney General, there are three foundational principles that must serve as touch-stones in the fulfilment of their public interest role, namely: (i) independence; (ii) a commitment to principled decision-making; and (iii) accountability. This paper elaborates the significance and implications of each of these foundational principles. It also considers whether, in light of the public interest role of government lawyers, they should be held to a higher or different standard of professional responsibility. The author argues that any such special or higher duty would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the proper limits of the lawyer's professional role within government. Finally, the paper explains how and why solicitor-client privilege plays a critical enabling role in the fulfilment of government lawyers' responsibilities.

This paper reviews the evolution in the role and fonctions of the Supreme Court of Canada over the past 25 years, and attempts to identify certain major challenges facing the institution in the decades ahead. In the past 25 years, the Supreme Court has moved from a traditional appellate tribunal to a body exercising a broader supervisory function in the interpretation and the application of Canadian law. Professor Monahan describes the nature of this evolution, and compares certain key aspects of the Court's current caseload and performance with that of the English House of Lords and the U.S. Supreme Court. He also reviews the continuing debate over the legitimacy of judicial review under the Charter and argues that, contrary to the claims of certain critics, the Court has been largely successful in striking an appropriate balance between its own role and that of the legislative and executive branches.