It was agreed, — That the proposed budget in the amount of $18,950, for the study of the definition of "work" and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code, be adopted.

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

Honourable Members,

Before we begin our hearings on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code, I would like to take a moment to discuss the fundamental right of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.

While there are very few limitations to the freedom of speech granted to both members and witnesses, I wish to remind members of the sub judice convention. Sub judice means “under the consideration of a judge or court,” and is explained by Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition, p. 99, as

a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.

In addition, as Speaker Fraser noted, it serves “to maintain a separation and mutual respect between legislative and judicial branches of government.” On the one hand, it protects the individual and on the other it upholds the separation of the two institutions.

Furthermore, page 1079 of Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition states:

The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government.

As you know, this convention is an informal rule of practice and not a formal rule of procedure and applies only to Members of Parliament speaking during parliamentary proceeding, whether in the House or in committee. Over the course of this study, we may be hearing witnesses who currently have active cases before the courts or a quasi-judicial body. In fact, we have the Canada Industrial Relations Board in front of us today, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal.

Members are asked to be mindful that some matters raised over the course of this study are under consideration before the courts. This is not to prevent all or any comments or questions by Members on the matter but rather to avoid Members addressing the particular issues that are before the court or commenting on the prospects for success by one of the parties to the legal proceeding.

That being said, subject to a decision otherwise by the committee, the sub judice convention does not give a witness the right to not answer questions. A witness may ask to be excused from answering a question because it relates to a matter in which the witness is involved before the courts, but it is up to the committee to decide whether the witness will answer the question. A witness’s position in court is not affected by what is said before a committee as such testimony cannot be used, directly or indirectly, in such proceedings.

I trust that members will exercise caution during their questioning and remind members of these words from our predecessors in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members:

It is submitted that, while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all Members of the House should share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems called for.

I thank members for their attention.

Maryse Tremblay made a statement and answered questions.

Kyle Seeback moved, — That, in light of recent reports of illegal foreign labour being used on federally funded infrastructure projects, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee hold at least two meetings with government officials, and representatives of the building trades across Canada to examine this issue within the context of federally funded infrastructure projects.

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled the motion inadmissible, as it is not relevant to the study at hand and the period of notice was not respected.

Whereupon Kyle Seeback appealed the decision of the chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: — 0;

NAYS: Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Leslie Church, Caroline Desrochers, Rosemarie Falk, Jessica Fancy, Laila Goodridge, Natilien Joseph, Andrew Lawton, Kyle Seeback — 9.

Accordingly, debate arose on the motion.

At 11:43 a.m., the meeting was suspended.

At 11:52 a.m., the meeting resumed.

Debate arose.

On motion of Kyle Seeback, it was agreed, — That the debate be now adjourned.

At 11:57 a.m., the meeting was suspended.

At 12:03 p.m., the meeting resumed.

The Secretary of State made a statement and, with Paul Thompson, answered questions.

Questioning of the witnesses resumed.

At 12:33 p.m., the meeting was suspended.

At 12:33 p.m., the meeting resumed.

Garnett Genuis raised a potential question of privilege regarding the refusal of the Secretary of State (Children and Youth) to answer questions during a committee meeting.

The Chair reserved his decision.

Questioning of the witnesses resumed.