It did indeed, and one of its more general principles was, literally, the statement that legislative bodies created by the Constitution Act, 1867, which many of us think of as the BNA Act, are not shielded, like enclaves, from the ordinary law of the land. There are more steps necessary before privilege kicks in, and the necessity test that you articulated about it having to somehow be necessary for the dignity and the efficiency of the assembly or its members.... And so that's where I wanted to go.
I just wanted to ask this. The Vaid case didn't necessarily raise it. A slight tension, I would call it, with respect to the law clerk's roles over the years has to do with the clerk having a slightly bifurcated responsibility, one towards the assembly as a whole, the House as a whole, including some direct lines with the Speaker, yet at the same time, the law clerk is also to be the law clerk for each individual member.
So the question is, is this something that you've given any thought to and is there any sort of general position or approach you have to the question of relationship between privilege of the House and privilege of its members, or your relationship to the House as a whole and members and where they may conflict?