I think the Canadian Human Rights Act says it applies in a manner that requires any future act to specifically say “this act applies notwithstanding”.
It's an important distinction. I'm not saying that the law shouldn't say it, but if it doesn't say it, we're talking about a different concept. It's important to clarify that.
It sounds to me as if what you're saying—you may not be saying this, and it just sounds this way to me—is that the act is dealing with an area that is not actually part of the written Constitution; it's part of what would be effectively the unwritten constitution we've inherited from our Westminster predecessors. When it's dealing with those unwritten areas, one of which would be parliamentary privilege, the act should be read in a very broad, large, liberal manner. Is that effectively what you are saying?