PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 9, 1999

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): We're now in session. We're not here to discuss things with television.

Colleagues, the order of the day is the beginning of our consideration of the orders of reference from the House of Commons dated Wednesday, February 17, 1999, and Thursday, February 18, 1999, in relation to the matter of the molestation of Mr. Pankiw, member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, and in relation to picket lines established to impede access to the precincts of Parliament.

But before we proceed to our witness—and I'll sort of go through the scenario of how we're dealing with this—I wonder if it would be okay if Lynn Myers, the chair of our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, were to table his report. Is that okay?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): It's fine with me.

The Chairman: Okay.

Lynn, I'd be grateful.

• 1110

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the honour of tabling the third report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. It deals specifically with the exchange of positions. I think the clerk, at the end of the period, will hand those documents out.

I'll read the two motions. The first is that the standing orders should be amended to restrict members to no more than one request for an exchange in respect of each item standing in their name in the order of precedence, unless events in the House have resulted in a change within five sitting days of the debate scheduled for the consideration of the item.

The second motion states that the standing orders be amended so that when an exchange is requested, the Speaker be permitted, on behalf of the members, to arrange an exchange in the second or third hour of debate on a votable item.

This came before the committee and was endorsed unanimously. I think it streamlines the process and makes sure it's fair for everyone.

So I would table that report.

I have three other items, and I'd like to speak back to them.

The Chairman: What are the three items? Are they very, very brief? Lynn, my intention is for you to table it, and we're going to receive it, and then we're going to proceed with the business of the day.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Very briefly, then, the subcommittee also reached a consensus with respect to a report that had been tabled on May 26, 1998, with respect to the reduction of criteria used for the selection of votability for private members' bills. As you know, we have 11 items that we use now, and we want it reduced down to the five items that were part of that May 26, 1998, report. As a committee, we want to re-emphasize that, re-endorse it, and we would ask this committee what the status of that is and how soon we expect to hear back.

The third item is that we had the round table on November 18 of last year on private members' business, and we have a report out, which Mr. Robertson wrote, indicating the flavour of that very good meeting. That's going to be passed out and submitted to all members of the House of Commons, and we're in the process now of monitoring exactly what's taking place.

Finally, there's a draw this Thursday at 1:15 p.m. in Room 139-North.

The Chairman: Okay, this means the members of the committee have now received the documentation and will look at it and will consider it again.

We thank you very much, and on behalf of the committee, we thank you for your ongoing work with private members' business. It's very important to us.

Colleagues, if I can return to the order of the day, you will recall that the situation we're in is that today we're here to hear from and perhaps question Diane Davidson to get some advice on this matter of privilege and the House of Commons.

Tomorrow we have Joseph Maingot again—for the same purpose but more generally, I would think. Diane is the general legal counsel, legal services, within the House of Commons, and Mr. Maingot is a kind of guru of these matters. Then on Thursday we proceed with consideration of the main estimates of the House of Commons, on Tuesday we call our two colleagues who are involved in these referrals, and on Wednesday we call representatives of PSAC. So that's the sort of flow we're in.

Diane, we want to welcome you here. We appreciate your taking the time, and if you can make a few remarks, I'm sure members have some interest.

Colleagues, we all have Jamie Robertson's briefing note for today.

Ms. Diane Davidson (General Legal Counsel, Legal Services, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone.

As you are all aware and as the chair has just outlined, the orders of reference of the House to this committee relate to the establishment of picket lines on February 17, which impeded access by members of Parliament and their staff to Parliament Hill and to parliamentary buildings.

In both his rulings, the Speaker stated that the facts presented to him constituted prima facie contempt of the House of Commons. He agreed that the members in question had in fact been obstructed or impeded in different ways and in varying degrees in the discharge of their duties by being denied access to the parliamentary precincts, and that such obstruction was a prima facie contempt of Parliament. The Speaker ruled immediately on the allegation relating to the use of physical force to intimidate and prevent a member from gaining access to his office. After consideration of the facts presented by other members, namely that the strikers had made it difficult for one member to enter his building by installing picket lines at the entrances of Parliament Hill, or interfered with the usual operation of two other members' offices by denying access to them and their staff, the Speaker also ruled that the allegations were serious enough for him to find a prima facie contempt of the House in that case.

• 1115

As general legal counsel of the House, I've been asked at this initial stage to provide guidance to the committee on its role and powers in addition to advice on other issues at play.

Let me begin by making a few brief comments on the role of the committee and its powers. Finally, I will refer to other issues of law raised by this matter. Because of the nexus between both orders, I believe it would be feasible for the committee to examine both questions at the same time.

The role of the committee is to determine, after reviewing the facts in both cases, if there has been contempt of Parliament. In essence, the committee must determine if the actions of the PSAC strikers constituted an obstruction of members and an affront to the authority of the House of Commons sufficient to constitute contempt of Parliament. It also has to determine if the right to unimpeded access to the House extends not only to members and officers of the House but also to any other person who has business with the House, including the staff of members.

If, after its review of the facts, a finding of contempt is made to the satisfaction of the committee, it would report the matter to the House with recommended remedies, disciplinary measures, or general recommendations and guidance to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future. Indeed, the House enjoys a wide latitude in maintaining its authority and dignity through the exercise of its contempt power. The existence of this power allows the House to discipline any person who is guilty of misconduct of any kind in the House or in committee.

The committee should note, however, that a contempt of Parliament is not restricted to misconduct during proceedings of Parliament or within its walls. It includes any act that has a tendency to directly or indirectly impede the House or its members in the discharge of their functions.

The definition of “contempt” made by Erskine May reads as follows:

...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the discharge of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duties or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary.

The contempt of obstructing, molesting or attempting to intimidate a member in the discharge of his or her duties is based on the pre-eminent right of the House to the attendance and service of its members. The law of privilege provides that the duties referred to are the primary legislative and parliamentary duties of the member and do not include his or her representative duties in the constituency office.

The law of privilege is also clear that the obstruction of members and officers to enter or egress from the parliamentary precincts is clearly contemptuous. The precincts are where the business of the nation is conducted and where the legislative branch fulfils its proper role in our political system. The precincts include, but are not limited to, the area occupied by the debating House or committees or where a parliamentary proceeding takes place. The buildings over which the Speaker exercises control to ensure that members may perform their parliamentary work without interference have traditionally been considered to form part of the precincts. The precincts are defined in Maingot as the Centre Block, including the chamber and committee rooms, the parliamentary library as well as any other buildings or parts of buildings over which the House of Commons exercises control. At the present time this would include the West Block, the Confederation Building, the East Block, the Victoria Building, the Wellington Building and most of the Promenade Building.

The standing orders provide that the Sergeant-at-Arms preserves the order in the galleries, corridors, lobbies and other parts of the buildings. This exclusive jurisdiction over the precincts supposes that the security services are responsible for taking the necessary steps to protect and guard the buildings, including requesting the assistance of the RCMP or the city police to ensure proper enforcement procedures of the criminal law or other applicable statutes in the precincts. The assistance from outside police forces concerning occurrences on the precincts is often required where prosecutions are contemplated for trespass or when there exists a serious threat or a special security requirement.

• 1120

The grounds of Parliament Hill are not part of the precincts, and the primary legal responsibility and accountability for the protection of Parliament Hill property belongs to the federal police force, that is, the RCMP. The RCMP is responsible for guarding Parliament Hill land since it is crown property. Parliament Hill essentially refers to the property located on the north side of Wellington Street.

The force is controlled and managed by the Commissioner of the RCMP, who is under the direction of the Solicitor General, who is responsible for Parliament Hill both to the Governor in Council and to Parliament. It is important to note that the role of the RCMP would not extend to protecting the grounds surrounding other parliamentary buildings not located on crown land. Local police forces would normally be responsible for law enforcement in front of the Wellington Building, the Promenade Building, the Victoria Building and other buildings located on the south side of Wellington Street.

It is interesting to note that in the U.K. at the commencement of each session both Houses order that during the session of Parliament the commissioner of police of the metropolis shall keep the streets leading to Parliament free and open to ensure that no obstruction hinders access to members or lords when approaching the House. This order does not claim authority over the streets surrounding Parliament House but facilitates the right of members to have free access to attend Parliament without molestation.

I wish to emphasize that it is not the mandate of this committee to determine if there may have been breaches of the civil and criminal law in relation to the incidents that occurred on February 17. Within our constitutional system of government, the courts alone are competent to determine if a general law has been breached or if an injunction will be granted in a particular case. However, it is also clear that only the House is competent to determine if contempt of the House of Commons has occurred. The courts have shown a customary deference when the House exercised its contempt powers and considered it eminently reasonable for parliamentary institutions to apply appropriate remedies in such cases.

While the committee may not be in a position to pronounce itself on the legality of the incidents that occurred on February 17 and on whether the conduct of the strikers would have breached the criminal and civil law, an understanding of the legal framework of labour relations in this case may help the committee to understand the nature of the strike action of PSAC members. It may also be useful in determining ways for the House to prevent such conduct in the future.

A breach of privilege or contempt will be punished by the House in accordance with its nature or its seriousness. The types of remedies that the House has used in the past for more serious offences have varied from expulsion to imprisonment for a period not to exceed the duration of the session. The House has more commonly resorted to a wide range of sanctions for less serious offences. They vary from exclusion from the precincts, censure, strong disapproval of the conduct, reprimand to written retraction or public apology.

It's my opinion, after reviewing the body of law on the matter, that the House would not presently have the power to impose fines as it cannot be clearly said to exist in the U.K. and because section 18 of the Constitution limits the Canadian statutory extensions of privilege to the state of the law in the U.K. The power to fine could be added by statute preceded by an amendment to the Constitution Act 1867.

The authority of the House to consider a matter contemptuous is not stayed or suspended by the fact that it may be or that it is being considered by the courts for an alleged breach of the civil or criminal law. However, I must add that there exists a practice of customary deference to the judiciary in the parliamentary context that is embodied in the sub judice convention. This self-imposed restraint is observed more particularly in criminal matters and consists in not discussing or considering matters that are under court review for fear of causing prejudice to the accused or perverting the course of criminal proceedings.

• 1125

[Translation]

I would now like to deal with the committee's right to investigate when a matter of contempt is referred to it. The vast powers granted to a parliamentary committee are not very well understood, and they are not always respected. Let's take a look at the powers of standing committees as stated in section 108 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It says there among other things that committees are authorized to call people and to require the production of documents and files. The wording makes no distinction between the different types of documents, or between categories of witnesses.

This means, of course, that a committee has almost unlimited powers to compel witnesses to appear and to order the production of documents, as long as the request is related to a topic within the ambit of Parliament and is within the committee's mandate.

The rights and obligations of the witnesses can be summarized quite easily. When a committee decides that it would be of benefit to hear someone, it can ask the clerk to invite this person to appear or adopt a motion ordering this individual to testify before the committee.

A witness may be asked to swear an oath or to make a solemn affirmation, but that is rarely done, since lying, leading a lie or giving false testimony is obviously contempt of the House of Commons and an attack upon its privileges, even if there was no swearing in. However, we could maintain that in certain cases, witnesses will try to hide behind the impunity which protects them against using their written or oral statement in any subsequent proceeding. The problem would be settled if witnesses were sworn since then any false or defamatory statement on their part would leave them open to charges of perjury under the Criminal Code.

When one appears before a parliamentary committee, one does not automatically have the right to be represented by counsel. However, committees being masters of their procedure, they do have the latitude required to authorize a witness to be accompanied by a counsel throughout the deliberations, especially if a committee is holding an inquiry into a matter dealing with an allegation of misconduct.

In most hearings of this type within committees, the role of counsel is limited to offering advice to his client rather than representation.

Furthermore, in a case where a parliamentary committee requires that a witness give testimony that would incriminate him or others, certain constitutional and legal guarantees are provided. First of all, there is protection under parliamentary jurisprudence. A witness appearing before a committee enjoys the same freedom of speech as an MP in the House or in a committee. Furthermore, section 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights prevents courts from enquiring into House or committee deliberations.

According to some experts, however, when a committee has been given the mandate to study an issue which could ultimately have an effect on the rights of an individual, for example lead to imprisonment for contempt, which is rare, it would be preferable that those hearings be held using the rules which apply to natural justice. Procedural fairness, which committees have respected generally over the years, means that witnesses receive sufficient notice of their appearance, that they are informed of that appearance and that they are informed of the mandate of the committee and also told what type of testimony the committee is looking for.

What happens if a committee is dealing with a recalcitrant witness or if the committee is not provided with the document that the members feel they need in order to move forward? First the committee would adopt a motion ordering the production of the required information or the appearance of the witness, and then they report this refusal to the House. As committees are not vested with the power to lay contempt charges, it is the Houses of Parliament themselves that will have to decide what measures are to be taken. According to Erskine May, the House could compel a witness to produce documents in his possession even if, for example, they are under the responsibility of a client who asked that they not be made public without his express permission. However, that has very rarely happened in such a way.

[English]

I will now end by broaching a number of issues that may assist the committee in its future considerations of the events.

While the committee will no doubt want to ensure in its recommendations to the House that proper security measures and administrative arrangements exist to prevent and control this type of activity in the future, the committee will be interested in assessing the legal means available to the security forces mandated to ensure unimpeded access to Parliament.

• 1130

Certain legal protections in the Criminal Code dealing with such things as intimidating Parliament and other offences such as causing a nuisance, a disturbance or unlawful assembly or mischief may be worth consideration. Other legal actions such as obtaining an injunction in certain cases that are considered serious and major threats to the operations of the House may be worth reviewing also.

In granting an injunction, the court will consider the merits of the case to ensure that there is a serious question to be tried. Secondly, it will determine whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the application was refused. Finally, an assessment would be made as to which of the parties would suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of the remedy pending a decision on the merits.

As an aside, when in 1996 the Speaker of the Ontario Legislative Assembly asked the Ontario Court, general division, to assist it in upholding its privileges by granting an injunction to prevent further obstruction by striking government employees in front of the Parliament Buildings in Toronto, Justice Winkler acknowledged that the access and egress of members and employees to the parliamentary legislative buildings was to be considered analogous to picketing a courthouse. He quoted Justice Dickson in a Supreme Court case, where the Supreme Court of Canada held that the effect of pickets that impeded and restricted public access to the courts except by permission of the picketers would lead to a massive interference with the administration of justice. Justice Winkler agreed with the Speaker of the Assembly that barricading the Ontario legislative buildings in such a way that members and essential staff could neither enter nor exit the buildings freely, thereby interrupting the work of the legislature, constituted a violation of parliamentary privilege and consequently a breach of the fundamental tenets of our political system. Those are the words used by Justice Winkler.

The lawyer representing the assembly made the point that, like courts of law, the legislative branch is also obviously an integral part of our system of governance and a key element of the rule of law. Justice Winkler concluded that delay and obstruction of entry and egress of members and essential staff of the legislative assembly struck a blow at the very heart of our society and was unacceptable.

In granting the injunction, the court did not consider it necessary to consider whether or not the actions of the strikers were otherwise illegal, but found it sufficient to establish that a strong prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege had been made and that irreparable harm would result in not having the parliamentary institutions fully operational.

Finally, while the committee is now being asked to pronounce itself on the legality of the actions of the strikers, it will certainly be important for the committee to determine if the strikers were otherwise exercising a legal right in the context of the labour dispute. While peaceful picketing contains an element of expression protected by paragraph 2(b) of the charter, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently taken the view that ensuring unimpeded access to courts is of sufficient importance to override a constitutionally protected right or freedom, and that when a picket line was established at the entrance of a courthouse access was effectively impaired.

Similarly, it is my opinion, as supported by the court in the Ontario legislative assembly case granting an injunction, that an unimpeded access to Parliament would override any charter-protected right of free speech. The committee should be aware that it was to ensure the protection of the legal and constitutional rights of members and citizens of Canada who elected them that employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament were not given the right to strike. In enacting legislation governing staff relations of parliamentary employees, Parliament was conscious that the right to strike would have likely impeded its efficient operations and that the particular interest of any unions representing its own employees could not override the greater public interest in the operations of Parliament.

• 1135

In this instance, even though the strike of PSAC employees may be said to be legal, there may be no legal right to install picket lines in front of the Parliamentary Buildings, not only from a parliamentary law but also from a strictly labour law point of view. The House of Commons, as separate employer, is not part of the dispute between PSAC and the Government of Canada in relation to its employees. The House is a separate employer, and the terms and conditions of employment and dispute have nothing to do with the House.

This completes my presentation. I'm now available to answer your questions.

[Translation]

I'll be pleased to try to answer your questions. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Diane. Your presentation was very interesting.

[English]

Before I go to the list, we have the Winkler decision here. I suggest Jamie do a summary and we'll circulate that summary of the Queen's Park situation.

Secondly, Diane, on the word “molestation”, which is used in this referral, I know it may be a current word for a lawyer, but in English it has a very strong connotation at the moment. It's my understanding it means something quite specific in this case. It has some sort of history in jurisprudence.

Ms. Diane Davidson: Yes, it does. I believe it has an element of physically impeding a member from having access to a parliamentary proceeding. It's a very specific—

The Chairman: If I molest someone now, it has a very current, very specific meaning. In this case it refers specifically to parliamentary privilege and the impedance you're discussing.

Ms. Diane Davidson: Correct.

The Chairman: It doesn't mean molestation in the more general modern way.

Ms. Diane Davidson: No, it would be restricted to the parliamentary sense.

The Chairman: Okay.

I have Stéphane Bergeron, Randy White, Chuck Strahl, Marlene Catterall and Lorne Nystrom.

Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): My remarks will be very brief, Ms. Davidson. You have outlined a number of points that we should keep in mind while studying this, one of which is the more general issue of parliamentary privilege. You went on to describe in very great detail the responsibilities of the House with regard to parliamentary buildings, those of the RCMP with regard to the grounds of Parliament and those of the Ottawa police with regard to the grounds surrounding other buildings, on the south side of Wellington Street.

Based on the principle of parliamentary privilege, does this have a bearing, when someone prevents a member from discharging his or her duties, regardless of where such an incident takes place? Does the fact that the member is prevented from coming to the House to discharge his or her parliamentary duties right here have any bearing? Does it have any bearing whether the incident took place on the steps of Centre Block, on the grounds adjoining the north side of Centre Block or, on the south side, in front of the Wellington Building?

Ms. Diane Davidson: I think you're absolutely right to say that this has no bearing. Contempt may be committed in any location—inside or outside buildings, or even in front of a particular parliamentary building.

Where it does become important to consider the matter of the jurisdiction or responsibility of police forces is in setting up preventive measures to ensure the freest possible access to parliamentary buildings in particular.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But the location has no bearing whatsoever on the question of privilege itself.

Ms. Diane Davidson: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Thank you, Diane, once again for a fairly thorough coverage of this.

I don't think there's any question about the members of Parliament acknowledging that we should uphold the right of individuals to organize and strike. I don't think that's at all at question here.

• 1140

Having gone through a fair number of labour disputes in my day, I'm interested in whether or not—you touched on it—you feel these pickets were actually secondary pickets, which is how I viewed them at the time. Secondary pickets mean basically not in the primary place of employment.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I prepared some notes on secondary picketing in case you asked that question, and I have a definition—

Mr. Randy White: Am I readable or what?

Ms. Diane Davidson: It's exactly as you said. Secondary picketing is the picketing of a third party not concerned by a dispute between the picketers and their employers. It is usually the picketing of a business, unionized or non-unionized, that has no labour dispute with the union but does business with the primary employer who is engaged in the labour dispute with the union, with the objective of inducing breach of contract or interfering with the secondary employer's trade.

In this particular case there is strong authority, as I mentioned in my presentation, to suggest that even secondary picketing that would cause an impediment to members' access to the buildings would interfere with the legislative function in such a way as to really cause irreparable harm, in the view of the courts. Particularly in that Ontario Court decision, it was considered to be prima facie not acceptable picketing.

Mr. Randy White: In cases such as this, emotions always run high on both sides—the employer and employees. When you're looking at situations such as this without a real inquiry, you're never going to find out—even with an inquiry—who said what, to what degree they said it and that sort of thing. It seems to me we are not looking necessarily at breach of privilege or contempt of an individual or individuals, but more at how to establish the operating rules for the future when such things occur. I just want your opinion on that.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I think that's certainly a good course of action. As I was outlining to Mr. Bergeron, reviewing the existing security measures, the roles of the different police forces, and what the law provides members in terms of mechanisms to ensure they have unimpeded access is certainly a course of action that merits consideration.

Mr. Randy White: One of the terms used in the House on the day the point of privilege was put forward was “molestation”, as you've said. However, that word was kind of put in the mouth of the individual who was standing, in terms of trying to get to a resolution we could deal with. In line with the chairman's comments, I don't think we were exactly sure at the time what molestation meant. I think that term tends to persuade individuals who are looking at it as to other connotations, and I don't personally like the use of that word in this case.

The Chairman: May I interrupt? I think it's an important point I was trying to make, and I've read some notes on it. If you go back to the 18th century or something, it meant to physically impede; that was the way you put it. That's simply what it meant. That's what it still means in this area of jurisprudence: physically impede.

I was trying to make the point for the same reason Randy is. There is a connotation in English—I'm not sure what the French is—today that is very different from what it was in the 18th century.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I believe there is still a connotation, if you look at the meaning of that word, of physical contact or a physical obstruction that needs to have occurred.

The Chairman: If I built a barricade... Excuse me, Randy, am I okay here?

Mr. Randy White: You have two minutes.

• 1145

The Chairman: If I were picketing and I were to build a barricade, that would be physically impeding. That's just one example. I'm trying to get us away from the pejorative sense of molestation, that's all.

Ms. Diane Davidson: It is up to the committee to decide what it would mean in a modern context. I agree with you that initially molestation meant actually physical obstruction with members. Whether or not the setting of a barricade is more obstruction, being a deterrent, in fact... I think a picket line, in effect, is a deterrent as well. Obviously people who see a picket line will not be tempted to cross it. The immediate reaction you have is that it's a signal not to cross it.

The Chairman: I'd better turn you back to Randy.

I'm sorry about that, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you. I have only one question, Mr. Chairman.

The reason I was leading into this question of terminology was that there were in my mind three different types of restricted access that I could determine on that particular day. The first type was where members of Parliament were blocked from entering the building by employees who were on strike—that is, forcibly blocked; basically, don't go in there. The second one was where there were members of Parliament who were turned back from entering buildings by police who said you should not enter here. The third one was actually where the buses that trip people around here would not cross access picket lines on the road.

So there are really three different types of impediments, and I think we're dealing with all three, not just one. Would you agree with that?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Yes, I would agree with that, and I think your committee can review these contempts together. In fact, as I stated in my presentation, they all vary in their degrees of interference and obstruction, but they all relate to whether or not this would amount to contempt of Parliament, these variations of obstruction.

Mr. Randy White: As a final question, in the collective agreement with PSAC employees, are there any articles in there relating to picketing and where—on what premises, on what basis? There usually is a picketing article. I wonder if there's a description or some kind of agreement with the employer as to where they might picket.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I haven't reviewed the collective agreement in this particular instance, but I assume it would be in the legislation. These details would probably find themselves in the legislation.

The Chairman: Next is Chuck Strahl, Marlene Catterall, Lorne Nystrom, and Lynn Myers.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your good presentation. I think it answered a lot of the questions up front.

There's a couple of things I wonder about. It seems to me that a role of a picket line is to intimidate, unless it's an information picket line. But basically, once they set the parameters of the thing and the cops get involved, the police and the picketers agree that no one is going to cross the line. In other words, it's an intimidation tactic. That's the purpose. There is some information, but basically this one was not for information, just for intimidation.

Is just the intimidation alone enough to be called contempt? People who tried to get through...staff especially, of course, were not allowed at all, and even some MPs were not allowed, at least initially. They had to come back in half an hour or an hour later and try to get through. Is that alone a contempt of Parliament, just the fact that it's there and intimidating?

Ms. Diane Davidson: In the case of a courthouse it certainly would be. The mere fact of having a picket in front of a courthouse would constitute intimidation and interference and would be considered contemptuous. That is clearly outlined in a Supreme Court decision. As you mentioned, a picket line triggers in its citizens an almost universal and automatic response not to cross it. That was clearly found to be sufficient to have the court say that it should not be in front of it, that no picket lines should be established in front of courthouses because, in fact, the mere fact of having the picket line impaired access.

• 1150

Mr. Chuck Strahl: What would be the remedy? I know the Speaker and his staff are in charge of security, but this isn't so much a security breach; this is an access problem.

Say they decided this is intimidating; it's certainly impeding for a few of the MPs, at least. Is the remedy to get an injunction if they want that picket removed? How else could they do it? Could they get an injunction?

Ms. Diane Davidson: That is a possible recourse.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: How else could you do it? The reason I ask is because the Ontario legislature had to get an injunction, which they did. Would that have to be done here as well if we wanted those pickets removed?

Ms. Diane Davidson: There could be consideration, as I mentioned before, to preventive measures, pre-established arrangements with the police forces charged with the protection of Parliament Hill and the application of the other statutes that would apply in such circumstances.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There were quite a few MPs who felt very intimidated, and of course their staff, who were completely shut out. Between the two and, of course, the timing of it all...it was just the day after the budget and all of the things that go with that. MPs who don't have access to their offices and their staff to help them with post-budget brouhaha really feel restricted. You can't get your work done, which is everything from responding to the budget to getting a speech out of your assistant's computer. All of that is restricted.

Is it up to us to rule whether staff should be included?

Ms. Diane Davidson: I believe it is.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it is up to us.

As it is now, as you know, when the staff is restricted they wander the streets looking for a warm place to hide. The MPs eventually got through, with some hassle, but staff certainly were restricted.

As for the only other question I had, you talked about the contempt and what we could do about it. Some of those sanctions you mentioned sounded to me like they would be considered for members of Parliament, such as a straight restriction, censure, and a few things. Are those also the same things that we could recommend to apply to a non-affiliated union? Could we say that we want to restrict access to PSAC workers on the Hill, or censure them, or whatever the list was there?

That list didn't sound like a list that would apply to a union; it sounded like a list that would apply to an MP.

Ms. Diane Davidson: It could be an expression of disapproval of that particular conduct, a public expression of disapproval, requesting an apology. Reprimand is not restricted to members.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, and none of those things are punitive in the sense of fining them. Those are all the words that we could ask for.

If we want to, can we up the ante to say that we think if they're going to block the access there should be a fine?

Ms. Diane Davidson: As I mentioned, the power to fine does not exist. Right now it would require legislative amendment, so the House would have to both amend the Constitution and enact legislation to have that power in place.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear, then, we could—

Ms. Diane Davidson: You would have the power to imprison, but that has not been used since 1913, and in a modern context I doubt that this is something that would be considered acceptable by the committee.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Diane Davidson: But it is still there as a power. It may not be used in this instance.

The Chairman: Okay. Next is Marlene Catterall, Lorne Nystrom, Lynn Myers, Gar Knutson, and Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Thank you for a very thorough, very well prepared presentation, one dealing with most of the issues that members had expressed that we would have to deal with in looking into this.

I wonder if you could clarify something. If one did decide at the end of this that a reprimand, censure, or whatever, was appropriate, who would be responsible if the picket line was not properly located and not properly conducted? Would this committee have to look at the union or the individuals involved?

• 1155

Ms. Diane Davidson: I would imagine that it would probably be the person responsible for deciding where the picket lines are going to be established. I would imagine that those decisions are made by some person in authority. A union is a fairly structured body, so I would imagine that if the strikers set up a picket line at a certain location, they may have been asked to do so.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So we would have to inquire into that.

Ms. Diane Davidson: Correct. I would look into this using that approach.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Would it be relevant in our inquiries if an alternate access were available to members of Parliament or staff to use? I do know that for a period of time there was another entrance to the Hill that was not blocked by the picket lines. Would that be relevant to our considerations here?

Ms. Diane Davidson: It may be relevant to the issues you are considering, but I would not want the committee to believe they should condone the actions in any way and not assert their privileges in these types of instances. It could prejudice the House not to assert its privileges in proper instances.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I was very interested in the Ontario case you mentioned. Although it's not clearly been established in any kind of precedent, you're certainly drawing a parallel between the privileges of Parliament and the privileges of the court. That's probably a valid comparison to draw. Given that decision, what obligation, if any, is there on municipal police forces to ensure that access is protected?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Given that decision, and if police forces are in a situation where in fact members of Parliament are being impeded from having access to the precincts, they would probably act in such a way as to enforce the applicable law. If they had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the conduct breached the law, they would be authorized to act in the circumstances and to charge people of certain offences or other breaches of the law.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chairman: Let's have Lorne Nystrom, then Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I'm very impressed with the thoroughness of the presentations. I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions in a couple of different areas.

First of all, the PSAC strike was a legal strike and PSAC employees do work in the Wellington Building. Even though the dispute isn't directly related to the House of Commons, there is a dispute between the employer and the employee. So I'll get you to explain a bit more about your comments on the status and rules that might affect that particular picket line.

They are employees in a legal strike position. There's nothing illegal about the strike. They happened to decide to picket in front of the workplace, which is their workplace. There happen to be members of Parliament in that workplace. Can you elaborate a bit more on what particular complications this may involve because there are members of Parliament in that particular workplace?

• 1200

Ms. Diane Davidson: In the Supreme Court case that I reviewed involving British Columbia government employees and the AG of British Columbia, that was exactly the case. Some of the employees working for the court were on legal strike, and even at that the court decided that no picket lines would be established in front of the courthouse.

So let's assume you're right, that there are some employees in the Wellington Building who are members of that union and who are in a legal strike position. Even at that the Supreme Court said in relation to courts that this was not acceptable and that the picket lines were not to be set up in front of the court.

As I mentioned, our own parliamentary employees do not have the right to strike; they do not even have the right to set up information picket lines in front of the buildings. So it would seem to be a bit odd that we would allow other picket lines to be set up under the circumstances if we have legislated in such a way as to limit our parliamentary employees' rights in that way and we have imposed on them binding arbitration in the context of a labour dispute.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: The difference is that we're not a court.

Ms. Diane Davidson: You are absolutely correct, we are not a court. In the application for an injunction, the court viewed the position of Parliament in the same fashion as that of a court. Because of the constitutional position of the House of Commons, the court said the analogy was very easily made. We could not have Parliament's operations impeded, any more than we could have the administration of justice impeded by the private interests of a particular union. The public interest has to come first.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: My question then would be how you would define the word “impede”. How do we determine whether or not someone was impeded? Do we get witnesses on both sides and call them before us?

For example, I have my office there as well and I will relate to you what happened to me. When I arrived I saw a picket line. I met the picket captain. He told me members of Parliament were allowed free access; I could cross the picket line and go into my office, no problem whatsoever. I declined to cross the picket line. It wasn't my intent to cross the picket line; I didn't do that kind of thing. I explained that to him and wished them the best in terms of getting a decent contract. Once again he said, “Look, you can go through. Members of Parliament are not being impeded. We're telling MPs they have free access to the building. We're not impeding MPs, go ahead.” He even signalled with his hand for me to go ahead in, and once again I very politely declined.

That was my experience, and another member, Angela Vautour, had exactly the same experience moments before or after me. We have other members relating a different experience.

How do we prove that they have indeed been impeded, or is it their word against some picketers' word? Do we cross-examine them as in a court? We have a contradiction here in terms of realities. I was told very clearly no MPs are being impeded, and I have my own experience to relate with witnesses.

Ms. Diane Davidson: If this committee does not want to embark on a review of the facts that occurred, that is a decision for this committee to make. In the context of a court, the mere setting of a picket line in front of the courthouse, the mere fact of having that picket line there, was considered to be an obstruction. And the court said, no, you're not even going to set the picket line in front of it.

Whether or not the court was in fact impeded, whether or not they were letting employees of the court go through and officers and members of the public go through, was not the issue. The mere fact of setting the picket line in front of the court was viewed to be an obstruction. In the parliamentary context you may not feel this is the analogy you would want to make, and that's a question for this committee to determine, I believe.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That's a fairly important decision too. If we look at the perception out there in terms of the rights of people, are we that special and that much above the law in terms of deeming ourselves to be a court? This took place outside the precincts, on the sidewalk in front of a parliamentary building, as I understand. There were police involved in terms of their jurisdiction. It's not quite as clear-cut, I think, because of where it occurred. There's a dispute of the facts as well. I know people on the picket line and on the PSAC side who have witnesses who dispute the facts of the two MPs who raised this issue in the first place. So I just wonder how we proceed.

• 1205

The Chairman: Could I follow up on Lorne's point, if you don't mind.

On this point about the court, just for our interest, in a more abstract sense, Diane, if you were asked about this analogy between the court and the House of Commons, and we weren't dealing with this situation, you believe that is more than an analogy, that in fact the House of Commons is a form of court. Is that too strong?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Well, it certainly is a constitutional entity equivalent in terms of its importance and authority. In our Constitution you have the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. You have to have the legislative and judicial branch fully operational, in my own opinion, and you have to uphold that protection. You have to ensure that the legislative branch has all the necessary protections to function. Whether or not you want to apply the same restrictions that courts of law have applied is a decision that can be made by the House, but I can tell you that the court readily applied a comparison looking at the law and the Constitution and said it felt quite comfortable in making the analogy, and it granted the injunction as a result of that in the particular context of the government employees' strike in front of the Ontario legislature. Mind you, it was a massive strike; there were massive demonstrations in front of the buildings and members were impeded in a serious way in having access to the legislative buildings.

It's a question of degree perhaps as to when we reach that point.

The Chairman: Lorne Nystrom, briefly.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I guess I'm having trouble seeing where we even draw the line. What do we mean by “impede”? If a member of Parliament is not allowed onto a certain precinct, that's one thing, but what about the staff? What about some other thing that might impede my interrelationship with my constituents? There's a taxi strike; I can't get to the airport. There's an air strike; I can't fly back to the riding. There are all kinds of things you can imagine. Where do we draw the line once we start going down that trail? Times are different now than they were 100 years ago.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I think when you're dealing with the precincts the line can be very easily established. Members were trying to have access to the precincts in these particular instances and were being impeded, I believe. In certain cases, it appears they were being impeded in having access to the precincts.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Now you're saying it appears they were being impeded. Before you said they were being impeded. Have we established the fact yet that they were impeded?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Those are the allegations and the prima facie—

The Chairman: I think we're going a bit far here, Lorne. Diane is here not as a witness but as an expert, or something of that sort. We're not after her personal opinions. I tried to follow through on your point.

Briefly, Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, Lorne seems to be taking a position that this is in fact just two people. As I introduced here, there were buses that couldn't come; there were police who said you should stay away. We're dealing with a much bigger issue than what he's pointing out.

The Chairman: Okay.

Lorne, can we move on? We have time, and we have tomorrow and so on. So it's Lynn Myers, Gar Knutson, and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted, Ms. Davidson, to say that I thought you made an excellent presentation of a very complex issue.

You spoke about parliamentary precinct. I want to get a sense of how elastic that term is. How far could that extend? Could it go into staff offices, for example? Could it go into caucus offices? Could it extend into other buildings that we're not theoretically and I guess historically thinking about?

Ms. Diane Davidson: The precincts are defined in two different ways. First, it is where the parliamentary proceedings take place. That is the easy definition in my view. Parliament conducts its proceedings in the chamber and in committees. That is very clear. Those are the precincts of Parliament. As well, precincts are defined in the geographical sense. They are the buildings, or parts of buildings, over which the Speaker has authority, over which the Sergeant-at-Arms exercises protective responsibilities, if you wish. So the precincts would certainly include those buildings where, for instance, members' offices are located and where parliamentary proceedings are conducted. We can readily identify those buildings. As I mentioned, they include the buildings located on Parliament Hill as well as the buildings on the south side of Wellington Street where members' offices are located.

• 1210

Mr. Lynn Myers: Is it understood under parliamentary privilege that caucus meetings are covered in that sense?

Ms. Diane Davidson: It is my understanding that caucus meetings would generally take place on Parliament Hill, so then those buildings would be considered the precincts. Anything that takes place in the precincts would fall into that. So caucus meetings would be in that way protected.

Mr. Lynn Myers: In an answer to Mr. Strahl about staff, you indicated that it would be up to this committee to see whether or not we wanted to include them—I think I heard you correctly there.

Ms. Diane Davidson: In its decision to grant an injunction, the court did not restrict itself to saying that members only were being impeded and the fact that members only were being impeded constituted a breach of privilege. They also said they should let essential staff go through, and members. The court even went as far as to include staff.

It is difficult for me to imagine how a member could conduct his parliamentary business in a modern context without his staff. This is a question that only a member could answer. But essentially the protection is there for the member, first and foremost for the member, and the member needs staff to operate. So obviously that would seem to me to—

Mr. Lynn Myers: And that would be both your interpretation and your recommendation.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I would prefer that the committee have a chance to review the whole issue before they conclude on this. But certainly I think there's an argument to be made that staff are essential to a member's operations.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, this is my final question. The picketers obviously chose to picket, but they could have also chosen to demonstrate on Parliament Hill, right?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Correct.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Is there a difference?

Ms. Diane Davidson: The only difference if they were to have picketed in front of Parliament Hill is that it would have been in the jurisdiction of a different police force. The RCMP have authority to protect Parliament Hill because it's crown property. Other locations south of Wellington Street would fall under the jurisdiction of the Ottawa police, local police.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like you to continue on Mr. Myer's question regarding the parliamentary precinct.

[English]

Ms. Diane Davidson: But with respect to whether or not it's impeding access to the precincts, it's irrelevant whether or not it takes place on Parliament Hill per se or across the street.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Gar Knutson and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Davidson, like everyone else I want to congratulate you on your presentation.

I'm troubled by a number of things I'm hearing. One is that it appears to me that, barring a constitutional amendment, the people who came and impeded access, whether to me or my staff or whatever, are likely to get off scot-free or, at worst, will be asked for an apology or something. I think when you break the law there should be some consequence.

Having said that, let's assume for the sake of argument that the police acted entirely correctly and they made a judgment that to go in and make arrests in that kind of crowded situation would have created more harm than good. It seems to me—and we don't want to send anybody to jail over this; it's not a big enough issue—that if we're looking for a remedy to make sure it shouldn't happen again, perhaps a fine is in order. You've indicated that we don't have the power to fine. Is there some other authority, whether under federal labour law or provincial labour law, that we could take a complaint to and ask that the union be fined?

• 1215

Ms. Diane Davidson: This is something I would want to review. I'm sorry, I haven't reviewed that issue in particular. There could be, but I would have to do a bit of research on that particular point.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fair enough.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, I'd like once again to mention how useful Ms. Davidson's presentation, and especially her answers, have been. I'd perhaps like to look more closely at the question asked by Mr. Nystrom a few minutes ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Davidson, but is it not true that the House has the power to transform itself into a type of tribunal, in very specific cases?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Yes, that's correct. When matters regarding contempt of the House are being considered, the House becomes in some ways a type of tribunal and it has powers of a penal nature to ensure that its privileges are not breached.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay. Isn't that another point on which a connection between a tribunal and Parliament can be established?

Ms. Diane Davidson: That's right. The court would no more review the House's authority to punish for contempt, than the House would challenge the court's authority to punish for contempt. In this sense, both entities have powers of a judicial nature, if I can say this, over matters constituting contempt.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This would therefore have the effect of lending even more support to the decision handed down by an Ontario court in the case which you brought to our attention a few minutes ago.

Ms. Diane Davidson: In my view, that case is most definitely relevant to the events that took place.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In terms of action that could be taken, there is prevention, of course. You raised this matter just now when you talked about the police forces that are responsible for each of the geographical components of the parliamentary precinct. We could adopt preventive measures, but in the event that a similar situation again occurred and the House deemed that it constituted contempt or a breach of parliamentary privilege, would the House have the authority to issue an injunction itself, to request action by security services or police forces to prevent this type of situation from reoccurring?

Ms. Diane Davidson: As I pointed out to you, the granting of injunctions is a power exercised by the courts. I don't think that the House has ever exercised this power. The House has not established any procedures applying to injunctions, to deal with these extraordinary remedies.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There are none, but since it was established at the outset that the House has, in exceptional circumstances, the power to transform itself into a tribunal, could it issue an injunction in such a situation?

Ms. Diane Davidson: In the same vein and, perhaps, to take a tack that might serve the same purpose, we could, as you started to point out, reach arrangements with police forces so that they would intervene in the case of incidents that the House deemed constituted contempt. As I said, the RCMP has jurisdiction over Parliament Hill. If the circumstances were such that the House felt that it was being impeded in the discharge of its duties, the RCMP could immediately begin carrying out the terms of a possible agreement.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think that what you have just pointed out here is the most likely possibility of an agreement between the House of Commons security services and the neighbouring police forces with regard to actions and reactions if the House finds there has been contempt.

• 1220

Let us continue for a few minutes along my theoretical line of reasoning. Should the police forces not take action, would the House, given the fact that it has the power to transform itself into a tribunal in exceptional cases, have the authority to issue an injunction?

Ms. Diane Davidson: I don't think so, but I cannot guarantee that's the case. I've not really looked at the matter in that way, but I believe that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is usually granted by courts. A court applies a very specific test and must be convinced of certain things. I don't think that the House has ever undertaken this type of exercise, and I don't believe that the House would be likely to do so.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would it have the power to do it at some point?

Ms. Diane Davidson: It's a question that we would have to study more closely.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Kilger, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): I'd like to talk briefly about the three police forces that provide security services for the parliamentary precinct. They are provided inside the buildings of the parliamentary precinct by our security services and House of Commons constables, and outside, by the RCMP and municipal police forces.

Would there be any interest in discussing the division of responsibilities between these three police forces and in considering changes to this division? In other words, is it conceivable that the RCMP provide security in the Wellington Building?

An Hon. Member: If a quarrel breaks out we'll have to call the police.

Ms. Diane Davidson: If the committee considered such an option, I think that the legislation would have to be amended to extend the responsibility and jurisdiction of the RCMP to lands other than Crown lands. I have not studied the issue from this angle. I'd have to take another look at the act that gives the RCMP the power to protect and to take action on Parliament Hill and I would have to determine whether there are any other elements that might have the effect of extending its jurisdiction.

But we have to be careful because administration of justice is a provincial jurisdiction. Since Parliament Hill is Crown land, one could argue that the federal police force should be responsible for its protection.

There are several elements that must be studied before considering whether or not the RCMP could assume responsibility for security for the buildings on the south side of Wellington Street. We would no doubt have to review some fairly serious legal questions before going down this path.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As far as the provinces are concerned.

[English]

Mr. Bob Kilger: Listen, I accept wholeheartedly what our witness, Ms. Davidson, is putting forth. On the one hand, for instance, we talk about the Wellington Building being part of the parliamentary precincts, within access and all the other phenomena, but when we come to talk about the jurisdiction of the police and to whom we're going to entrust the security, we say no, it's not part of the precincts.

I'm being the devil's advocate here. Is that a false statement or not? In other words, the precincts extend for our purposes to Wellington, but for the purposes of policing they do not.

Ms. Diane Davidson: For purposes of policing inside the buildings?

Mr. Bob Kilger: No, outside the buildings. In this case we're dealing with events that took place outside. I'm not passing judgment on the events.

Ms. Diane Davidson: You're correct, you're dealing with two different police forces. One is a federal police force when the incidents occur on Parliament Hill, and when the incidents occur on the south side of Wellington Street, you are dealing with the local police force.

• 1225

Mr. Bob Kilger: Okay. If we can, Mr. Chair, let's zero in on precincts. Obviously, the precinct definition is not applicable...it does not have the same significance to us as parliamentarians as it does to the law enforcement people. Parliamentary precincts do not extend to all the buildings that house, in the same fashion or with the same rights and privileges...

Ms. Diane Davidson: I would say that access to the precincts is different, depending on the security forces responsible for ensuring unimpeded access to the precincts. But the precincts as such are not different. The Wellington Building is considered to be part of the precincts. It's just that the issue you would be looking at here would be who is responsible for ensuring access. If your office is located on Parliament Hill, it would be a different police force than if it were in the Wellington Building. That is correct.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Is it fair to ask you to comment on whether there is, in your estimation, from precedents or otherwise, consistency in the application of that enforcement? It's something we would all strive for, and I'm sure they probably do within their own separate entities. But are there any impediments to applying that consistently, whatever recommendation we make? Should we also be concerned in getting any testimony from those law enforcement agencies?

The Chairman: I think you may well comment on that, but I have a sense, Bob, that this is something for Mr. Cloutier when he comes. But, Diane, feel free.

Ms. Diane Davidson: I quite agree that Mr. Cloutier would be in a good position to answer this. Whether or not it makes a difference for members... For instance, parliamentary proceedings taking place in certain locations...what would be the ideal situation? Would it be the ideal situation to have members' offices and members located on the north side, let's say, of Wellington Street, rather than on the south side, given those security issues? That is a question that maybe Mr. Cloutier will be able to help you answer.

The Chairman: Diane, if I could, on behalf of my colleagues, I think you can tell we have great appreciation for your presentation and for your responses to our questions. It seems to me we've been asking you about all sorts of boundaries between the precinct and elsewhere and between jurisdictions and so on, but we're actually dealing here with two very fundamental rights in our democratic system. One is the right to strike and picket and the other is parliamentary privilege. We've got all sorts of detail things to do, but it's my hope that by the time it's finished we will have helped protect both of those rights. You've helped us do that. We really appreciate it.

Colleagues, before we finish, I want to remind you all, because I know you forget, that we have an extra meeting tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. We meet with Mr. Maingot. Then we meet at the regular time on Thursday, which is main estimates of the House of Commons. Then next week we go to Tuesday again. We do have a Wednesday meeting next week, but next Tuesday our colleagues mentioned in the references will be appearing before us.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, before we are faced with a fait accompli, could we get more details on what the words "light drinks" mean?

[English]

The Chairman: On that note, we conclude the meeting.