You’re welcome.

This is particularly the case where a first minister uses their majority in the House to use parliamentary rules to limit debate. The parliamentary body is unable to scrutinize a bill before it becomes law and the courts are prevented from scrutinizing a bill after it becomes law.

"Parliamentary supremacy" has, historically, been the argument used to justify the NWC. But given the extent to which first ministers control their caucus, and therefore the House (where there is a majority government), this is really an exercise in executive immunity, not parliamentary supremacy.

From Pat Carney's memoir "Trade Secrets."