Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madame Legault and Monsieur Drapeau, for appearing before us.
Thank you, Madame Legault, for your letter, which prompted the invitation to both of you here, although it perhaps raises more questions than it provides answers. I think it's a very worthwhile discussion we're having.
The difficulty, obviously, is the fact that the act doesn't have any reference made to parliamentary privilege, but the Constitution certainly does. From a legal perspective versus a constitutional perspective, that's where we get into almost competing interests. What we're trying to do here as a committee is provide clarity so that we don't end up in court the next time a situation similar to what we've seen in months past occurs again.
I expect, Madame Legault, that it's even more problematic for you, inasmuch as not only do you have to, in your position, respect and almost defend the act, but as an officer of Parliament you also have to respect and uphold the Constitution, so within your decision-making purview you have a bit of a conflict there, I would suggest.
I find it interesting that both of you have recommended that the way to get out of this quandary we find ourselves in is to amend the act itself.
I also note that in your presentation, Madame Legault, you said there had been two recommendations in the past, one in 1986 from the Department of Justice and one in 2002, to do exactly that.
I am not sure, frankly, because that was before my time, why Parliament didn't act on those recommendations. Can you provide us with a little recommendation or a little insight perhaps, if you have that information, as to what specifically those recommendations might have been?
It's one thing to say, yes, you can amend the act, but although Monsieur Drapeau made some reference to it under section 13, what specifically—and I'd like to hear from both of you—would you suggest in terms of clarity of words, precision of words, might we want to consider if we chose to make a recommendation to amend the act?