Official Languages Committee on Feb. 9th, 2012

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, yes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Yvon Godin]

Order, please.

Continue, Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

So I read that letter, which we received from a citizen whose address I will not disclose. I nevertheless asked people to establish their identity if they wrote me so that it would be clear they were not people from my office writing letters to enable me to use the committee's time.

This is a citizen of Bécancour, a town that is not in my constituency. If memory serves me, I would say that Bécancour is probably part of the riding of the dean of the House of Commons, Mr. Plamondon, who is a Bloc member.

Things are stepping up. Now Twitter is in the mix, and people feel like taking part in the defence of freedom of speech. I'll read you two tweets that have come in just now. Pardon my accent in English. I'm a real francophone and

I'll do my best.

This letter is from Nathan:

There is no place for secrecy. An open, transparent government is what the people deserve.

Yes, oppose the secrecy. Government is becoming more and more radical, dictatorial in its disregard for the common good.

I believe I'm going to work on my second language by reading the letters that citizens may be sending me from across the country.

So it's very simple. If you want to take part in the debate, if you want us to read your letters and disclose them to everyone or share your vision, write to [e-mail], and we'll be pleased to let you help continue this debate and especially make the government party understand that a motion such as the one that has been introduced is inadmissible, the one that states: "That all Committee business of the Committee be conducted in camera." Once we have found a solution to this difficult situation we are in, we will thank you for having taken part in the debate. For the moment, anyone who can say when this will stop is a wise individual indeed.

So coming back to my initial subject, as you know, I addressed the concept of an open government and talked about the importance of transparency, which I myself wanted as a way of opening up debate to the citizens who are watching us, since we are fortunately meeting in public.

I also asked myself the following question: the fact that, over the years, we have established such a large number of institutions—now we have to talk about institutions—on Parliament Hill to make information public, it seems to me that, here too, this must contradict the motion here before us.

If all the committees worked in camera, what would happen to the number of CPAC television viewers? We often tend to make jokes on CPAC and to say that no one is watching. I have to admit—and I apologize for this—that, before I was elected, I was probably thought the same thing. When I used the remote to look for something to watch in the evening, I found CPAC, but I rarely felt like continuing to watch it. I had a very big surprise last June, at the time of the systematic obstruction over the Canada Post dispute, which is still unresolved as far as I know. It even appears that a Federal Court judge refused to appoint an arbitrator because, once again, he was a unilingual anglophone. His decision, as wise as it might have been, could have been challenged simply because that institution is subject to the Official Languages Act. Someone could have claimed not to have clearly understood the judge. In short, this is a substantive problem.

However, that is not my point. Coming back to CPAC, during the Canada Post dispute, I realized the impact that television network had on the lives and political knowledge of the citizens of this country. I said that jokingly during the systematic obstruction. That was the second month in my life that I had ever worn a cellular telephone at my waist. I had always rejected that kind of virtual leash, saying that I had a telephone and an answering machine at home. I didn't believe there could be any situation so serious that it would require me to answer the phone on the bus, at the grocery store and so on. In short, I didn't have one and I said at the time that I had the feeling I was wearing a genuine vibrating massage belt. I'd obviously cut off the ringtone so as not to disrupt the debates. I wanted to have information coming in, but I didn't want to disrupt the proceedings of the House with it ringing. You can understand why. I put my cell phone on vibrate mode, and I had the feeling I was equipped with one of those old devices that simulated physical activity and that we were led to believe would make you lose weight by buckling on a vibrating belt that shook up the roll at your waist. Once again, I had the feeling of experiencing that same sensation of body vibration, with a distinctly more advanced technology.

In short, it didn't stop for the 59 hours that the systematic obstruction lasted. Five minutes didn't go by without e-mails coming in by BlackBerry from across Canada. In some cases, people told me to keep working, that they were proud of what we were doing, that they were behind us, whereas, in other cases, they called us foul names—and here I'm censoring a few words—and told us to stop immediately. I know some messages were entirely positive with regard to the vision I was defending, while others were totally opposed to it. The fact remains that, each time, democracy was being expressed in this country through my BlackBerry and Parliament.

Obviously, during the systematic obstruction, I had to select the e-mails that I passed on in the House. I figured that, in any case, copies of the most vindictive of them were probably sent to people belonging to the party opposite, who would be pleased to use them. I believe that's fair. That's the way democracy is. I'm entirely prepared to play the game as part of this debate. In fact, it's more than a game: it's a genuine reflection of democracy.

Coming to CPAC, because I consider it obviously important, every time we sit in camera, the message we send to the public, particularly all the members of the official language minority communities is this: we're sorry, ladies and gentlemen, we know that the subject being addressed by the Standing Committee on Official Languages concerns you directly, vitally so, and that it affects your interests, but at 4 o'clock in the morning, when these debates should be rebroadcast and you would like to tune in to that station to follow them, instead you get a news ticker stating that the committee's proceedings were unfortunately conducted in camera and that, consequently, you will not have access to relevant, first-hand information that concerns you directly.

So I went on to the CPAC site to try to gauge the nature of that channel, to determine how long it had been in existence and try to understand why it was being gagged. The channel belongs to the media network. Here's what I learned about CPAC:

Created by Cable for Canadians CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, is Canada's only privately-owned, commercial-free, not-for-profit, bilingual licensed television service.

Do I need, once again, to review the quality of the syntax of the French here to emphasize that "unique" means "unique", as in "seule et unique"; that is to say that there are no others?

Created in 1992 by a consortium of cable companies to preserve an independent editorial voice for Canada's democratic process, [...]

It is nevertheless extraordinary to see everything I was able to find, in a few hours of research, on the importance of democratic processes in this country. Everyone talks about it.

[...] CPAC provides a window on Parliament, politics and public affairs in Canada and around the world.

Here I wasn't sure if that meant they were broadcasting the committee's proceedings around the world or that CPAC concerned itself with foreign affairs. That should be checked. My research isn't complete. Let's say that I very much fear it might start broadcasting in camera sessions around the world. That's not very dangerous, in that they would be broadcasting nothing, but the message sent will be public. People will say that nothing is available in Canada. That can't mean good press for anyone, regardless of the party you represent.

Since 1992, the cable industry has invested close to $50 million in CPAC, [...]

When I see figures like $50 million, I admit I am not the best financier in the world, but, for a citizen, that is a colossal amount of money. Perhaps it is not a large sum relative to the cable companies' budget, but we're nevertheless talking about $50 million that would be invested for in camera meetings. That seems to me to be a lot of money, and if I were a broadcaster, I wouldn't be sure that I would invest as much money for such a little result.

[...] and today CPAC programming is delivered by cable, satellite and wireless distributors to over 10 million homes in Canada, and worldwide via 24/7 webcasting and podcasts available on this website.

I found my answer a few lines further on. I hadn't switched on the first time I read it. We're talking about 24 hours a day, Mr. Chairman, based on what you feel is easiest for you, podcasting, the Web or cable. That may be at home, on the bus or while you're training at the gym to retain your proverbial form. Consequently, you can receive information about Canadian politics 24 hours a day, in Canada and around the world, if you are on a business trip or with colleagues anywhere in the world. So you'll be able to tell the entire world that, here at home, everything is done in secret and that that's what we broadcast because the rest takes place in camera.That seems to be quite a problem to me.

Going back to the CPAC document:

CPAC is Canada's independent, commercial-free politics TV, providing around the clock programming focused exclusively on the people and processes shaping our country each day. From our broadcast centre two blocks south of Parliament Hill in downtown Ottawa, our experienced editorial staff [...]

Perhaps they'll become gagged journalists, but we hope matters don't reach that point.

[...] stay on top of events as they happen—and have direct access to the politicians making them happen.

Mr. Chairman, you have very definitely done a lot interviews on CPAC, given the experience you have in politics. I find it hard to imagine how a CPAC journalist could now call you to ask you whether you would be prepared to go into his studio to do an interview on the in camera content of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It goes without saying that neither you, I or anyone else will now be able to take part in the work of CPAC journalists if we systematically go in camera for all the committee work of the committee.

I'll go back to the document, which refers to the result, the result, it has to be said, when things go well:

The result: insight and analysis that takes you far beyond the headlines, and compelling coverage of politics and events as they happen. When things turn political, Canadians turn to CPAC.

Long live CPAC, I feel like saying, but let's make sure, as parliamentarians, that we provide it with the material to keep the network going.

Since 1992, the cable industry has invested close to $50 million in CPAC. [...] Canada's cable industry believes that unbiased and widespread access to the institutions, processes, individuals and events that shape Canadian public policy is a vital public service.

We have the money and the central issue that concerns us, which is to ensure that Canadians have access to impartial information of public interest. That's quite extraordinary. It would be even more extraordinary—it's ironic—to take away those services from a society that we want to be informed.

Who has access to ParlVU, CPAC's Web component, a Web broadcasting service? People are probably watching us on ParlVU as we speak and have been listening to me for the past few minutes. I hope they have heard my call to them to write to us and share their opinion with us on the motion that has been introduced to make all committee business of this committee secret. The expression "in camera" means "secret".

If you think, as we do, that we must rise up against this kind of motion and fight as long as necessary to preserve freedom of speech, I invite you to go to my Web page and to write to me directly at [e-mail]. Believe me, I will be pleased to read your letters one after the other.

You'll also find me on my Facebook page, if you want us to become friends. It's not about a contest to have the largest number of friends. However, that may be the best way to access the information on this issue. Go to Robert Aubin's Facebook page. There you'll find all the information, addresses and all the information you need to take part in this debate.

Going back to the issue of who can have access to ParlVU, ParlVU is a live Web broadcasting service through which all Canadians can access the audio and video broadcasts of events in the Parliament of Canada. Can the general public access ParlVU? The answer is yes. The Canadian public can access ParlVU from the Parliament website, the address of which is www.parl.gc.ca. There you will find the link you have to click to hear us live, minute by minute.

There is another instrument of transparency. We might have been content with CPAC or the Canadian government policy on open government, but the British parliamentary system is more precise than that. One of the oldest tools is the record of committee proceedings. Unfortunately, I will be occupying an important place in the record over the next few days. If all the meetings or all the committee business of the committee are conducted in camera, that will mean a very short record for the public. We have a substantive problem.

I have a few tweets coming in. I always find it hard to say that word because, back home, a "twit" is not really a bird. I'll correct my accent. Here's the message in question:

Government business should not be conducted in secret. What do they need to hide from Canadians?

I don't have the answer, but I thank you for asking the question. I've been looking for the answer for a number of minutes now. I'm trying as hard as I can to direct us toward potential answers that would make all the Conservative Party members aware of the inappropriate aspect—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Yvon Godin]

Mr. Aubin, I must interrupt you.

We will suspend until the next meeting, which will normally be held on Tuesday morning at 8:45.

The meeting is adjourned.