Runnymede Radio Lagassé and Sirota: Parliament after the Power Case
Sep 23, 2024
Philippe Lagassé, an expert on parliamentary roles, and Leonid Sirota, a specialist in constitutional law, delve into the significant impacts of the Power v Canada ruling. They discuss how this decision may shift parliamentary privilege in Canada, affecting the delicate relationship between legislative and judicial branches. Topics include Crown liability, the evolving role of judicial review, and potential increases in litigation against the state. They also explore the implications for legislative independence and the necessity of parliamentary privilege in modern legal frameworks.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Parliamentary Privilege Under Review
- Parliamentary privilege traditionally shields the legislative process from judicial review to protect legislature functions.
- The Power decision challenges this by allowing limited court review of legislative processes for Charter compliance.
Balancing vs Categorical Privilege
- The majority in Power treats parliamentary privilege as one constitutional principle among others, balancing them rather than viewing the privilege as categorical.
- The dissent sees parliamentary privilege as a clear jurisdictional boundary, not subject to balancing.
Redefining Privilege and Liability
- The majority narrows parliamentary privilege, focusing on individual legislator’s freedom of expression.
- It also redefines state liability to hold ministers liable for legislative actions, departing from historical Canadian law.