I come back to what I was saying. We can feed that cynicism, or we can cure it. In choosing to feed it, we are not helping parliamentarians, nor are we helping the Canadian population.
I decided to get into politics after the birth of my two young daughters in order to change this country for the better. I am sure that some of my colleagues on the other side made the same choice. They wanted a more transparent Parliament, that would be closer to the population and reflect Canadian democratic values.
Like my colleague Mr. Angus, I was particularly disappointed when I became a member of Parliament to see that the general practice of this government was to do things in camera and to keep things hidden. That practice helps no one. Journalists are frustrated that they do not have access to information.
I should add here that I find it particularly ironic that the access to information committee systematically holds its meetings in camera. That is really not funny. It's a matter of legitimacy, and to create that legitimacy and inspire trust in the Canadian population, we have to have some very clear rules. If we told Canadians that there is a rule and that we are going to apply it, most of them would understand that way of doing things. The problem is that we have breached all of the rules and broken all of the conventions. In a British parliamentary system, a convention is as important as a rule; we agree on that. Canada is not a republic, but a British constitutional monarchy, with traditions and conventions we should be respecting. I expected the Conservative Party to respect those traditions and conventions, but we may not be talking about the same type of conservatism.
Mr. Angus's motion aims to add entirely appropriate details to the routine motion. The working relationships with the personnel and the operations of Parliament must remain confidential, which is entirely normal. By the same token, we would not expect collective bargaining to be completely public. These discussions have to be held be behind closed doors.
In that spirit, this motion is very explicit. It refers to wages and other employee benefits, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personal matters, and the reports or matters that require confidentiality. All of that is reasonable. What is not is to hide certain debates and certain information that must be accessible to the public and to journalists by presenting motions requiring in camera meetings.
Allow me to add that those motions are not debatable, which is even more unfair. The Canadian population cannot know why members want us to go in camera or why we don't want to. We remove all access to information. The in camera motions are being used as a gag and abused. I am against this abuse. It is unhealthy for our democracy, for the legitimacy of our parliamentary institutions, as well as for the vision and opinion that the average citizen has of politicians and parliamentarians.
I must add that the scandals are adding to the cynicism. I am talking about the Senate scandal and all of the scandals related to the expenses, secret cheques and hidden tactics to get people to keep quiet. As we are about to begin our work anew, we have here a golden opportunity. We, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, really have a golden opportunity to send the Canadian public and our fellow citizens the message that we believe in our institutions, in the role of the committee, in its importance in our democracy and the importance of the contact with citizens it provides. We really have a golden opportunity, and I hope that my colleagues from all parties, in particular those of the government party, will seize this opportunity and find in themselves their democratic essence. When I look at my colleagues' faces, I know that they are democrats, but I know that some people, I don't know which ones, are asking them to systematically hold our hearings in camera. I am asking them to make a different decision and support this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.