Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was independent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
If you don't mind, the chair is going to entertain the point of order.
In fact, calling for parliamentary language is a legitimate point of order. Mr. Calandra has a point, so we're going to keep the language within the realm of accepted norms.
Mr. Ravignat, go ahead.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
All I did was point out the definition of “conservatism”. That's quite parliamentary. In fact, I'll continue to do the same thing.
This is “Toryism”:
mid 17th century: probably from Irish toraidhe—
My Irish is not very good. Mr. Angus could probably correct me on that.
—'outlaw, highwayman', from tóir 'pursue'. The word was used of Irish peasants dispossessed by English settlers and living as robbers, and extended to other marauders—
10:40 a.m.
NDP
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
The definition continues:
—especially in the Scottish Highlands. It was then adopted circa 1679 as an abusive nickname for supporters of the Catholic James II
The point is that I don't know where the soul of the Conservative Party is. Obviously, I'm not a member of the Conservative Party, so maybe that's not my business, but there is a very fine line between conservatism and authoritarianism.
This motion is in the spirit of the highly concentrated politics of this particular government. When we look at the motions in the House to shut down debate, the abuse of in camera motions in committee, and just their general secrecy and the PMO's unavailability to the media and to Canadians, we're seeing a pattern.
Unfortunately, this motion has come to a committee, where I think it doesn't belong. This kind of motion needs to be debated in the House of Commons, where the duly elected people are represented.
Also, I would like to point out that the independent members of our Parliament play an important role. They always have. In fact, the ability to cry from the wilderness, to quote the New Testament and Saint John, was a very important function, that function of consciousness that can scream from the wilderness and challenge authority. It is a very important role to play. Some of my independent colleagues play it very well, in my opinion, and I think that our House is all the richer for their presence, for their impact, and for their intelligence.
10:40 a.m.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
There's a contradiction between your applause and your motion, sir.
Mr. Chair, the idea that we would exile them to the will of the committee in order for them to be able to present amendments to a bill is really unconscionable. Frankly, I think Canadians can see through this quite easily. I keep having visions of the delegation from Kenya that was in my office. What would they think of this? I think they would shake their heads and wonder where Canada is on this and how healthy our democracy truly is under this government. They would be right to ask. I don't think they're the only ones who would be asking that question.
The other issue I have, which I think is fundamental, is that of due process. I've mentioned that this should probably be debated in the House. We're talking about a major change in the way our democratic institutions function in the role of a member of Parliament and the privileges of a member of Parliament. We have no clarity at this point—
10:45 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Mr. Ravignat, I have to interrupt you now. I see that the clock is at 10:45 a.m. and that's the end, unless there's unanimous consent to extend the meeting beyond this, in which case we'll have to find another room.
Is there consent to continue the meeting?
There is none. Therefore, the meeting is adjourned. At the next scheduled meeting of the committee, we'll continue where we left off.
Thank you. We're adjourned.
