Bibliographic record
Abstract
The privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament are part of the law of the Constitution. Courts have struggled with the role and place of these privileges in the constitutional system, notably with respect to their relationship to other parts of the Constitution, including the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This paper explores that relationship and clarifies the status of parliamentary privilege under the Constitution, having regard to the constitutional text, the principles underlying or informing the interpretation of the constitutional provisions, including the principle of the separation of powers, and the leading cases, notably the decisions of the Supreme Court in New Brunstick Broadcasting and Vaid. The parliamentary privilege is a necessary adjunct to the legislative and deliberative functions of the houses, and to the maintenance of the dignity and efficiency of those bodies. The paper concludes that parliamentary privilege is not, nor should it be, a substantive end in itself, and that the courts would do well to maintain that attitude in scrutinizing contested claims of privilege where the existence, scope or necessity of the asserted category of privilege is at issue, and where there are competing constitutional principles, rights and interests in the balance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".