Great post. I do think the majority's reliance on the constitutional preamble in NB Broadcasting was implicit recognition (of Lamer's explicit view) that s. 18 is effectively an amending provision rather than something that wholly entrenches parliamentary privilege. The reliance on the preamble to 'read' parl privilege into the Constitution of Canada is a dubious approach in of itself, and had the majority simply relied on s. 18 I think I'd have less of a problem with NB Broadcasting as a whole. This doesn't really change any of the remainder of your analysis, esp. in relation to the incoherence of today's decision in relation to Mikisew, etc.
I've read a few commentaries on the Power decision now, and not one of them bothered to outline the actual issue being tried. It's all very abstract and abstruse. Would it be too difficult to *illustrate* what the decision means in concrete terms by telling us what the dispute was about and how it was resolved?
Great post. I do think the majority's reliance on the constitutional preamble in NB Broadcasting was implicit recognition (of Lamer's explicit view) that s. 18 is effectively an amending provision rather than something that wholly entrenches parliamentary privilege. The reliance on the preamble to 'read' parl privilege into the Constitution of Canada is a dubious approach in of itself, and had the majority simply relied on s. 18 I think I'd have less of a problem with NB Broadcasting as a whole. This doesn't really change any of the remainder of your analysis, esp. in relation to the incoherence of today's decision in relation to Mikisew, etc.
I've read a few commentaries on the Power decision now, and not one of them bothered to outline the actual issue being tried. It's all very abstract and abstruse. Would it be too difficult to *illustrate* what the decision means in concrete terms by telling us what the dispute was about and how it was resolved?
This demonstrates, in part, why Justice Brown was forced out (set up?) by the progressive Supremes.