| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
02330pab a2200157 454500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
180718b1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Mellon, Hugh |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
Courts and parliamentary privilege: the battle over televising the Nova Scotia assembly |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. |
1995 |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION |
|---|
| Extent |
p.578-97 |
| 362 ## - DATES OF PUBLICATION AND/OR SEQUENTIAL DESIGNATION |
|---|
| Dates of publication and/or sequential designation |
Winter |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc. |
Since the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms there has been debate over the relationship between courts and legislatures. One Supreme Court case that raised an interesting variant of this issue involved controversy over claims of parliamentary privilege in the Nova Scotia house of assembly. At issue were competing claims of traditional parliamentary prerogatives and Charter-based rights of the press and of free expression. Members of the Nova Scotia media community wanted to cover the proceedings of the provincial assembly with independently operated hand-held video cameras. Arthur Donahoe, then Speaker of the Assembly, described this as a potential threat to the orderly conduct of legislative affairs. It was claimed that the ability of an assembly to set rules of conduct and to monitor the access of the press gallery were covered by traditional parliamentary privileges. In the end, the majority judgment of the Supreme Court, as penned by Justice McLachlin, supported the position of the members of the Nova Scotia assembly. McLachlin put forth a surprisingly traditional view of the authority of parliamentary bodies. The ruling, however, left questions about several key topics. There was division among the justices over the application of the Charter to assembly proceedings. The larger issue of the Charter's overall reach seems to persist as a source of discussion. Meanwhile, McLachlin's judgment seems to remove adjustment of privilege from the realm of the provincial constitution to the domain of the formal Canadian Constitution. Whether this will complicate life for the provincial assemblies bears watching. Finally, the very nature of the concept of privilege seems to be evolving in light of references to rights of parliamentary assemblies in the judgment of Justice McLachlin and to the orderly and efficient conduct of legislative affairs. - Reproduced |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Judiciary |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Main entry heading |
Canadian Public Administration |
| 909 ## - |
|---|
| -- |
32665 |
