Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm delighted to be here with our committee mates. I welcome some of the new members to this illustrious committee, the mighty OGGO. I'm sure we're going to have an interesting, enlightening and illuminating discussion. Two out of the three would be good. It's a friendly discussion, I would say. That's really important.
Nonetheless, this is an obviously important issue. The stakes here are significant. That's why we're having discussions that, at times, can be a little heated. This is serious business we're talking about here, and there is a lot on the line. I think that's why, again, these discussions are sometimes difficult. The debates are sometimes difficult. At the same time, that's the reason we've been meeting on these issues for many hours last week as well as this week. I believe we have a six-hour meeting scheduled this evening. We know this is a serious issue in which all sides are taking a great interest.
I want to pick up on some of the commentary from last week. The importance, really, of what is at the heart of this debate that we're having here today is balance. That is really what this issue and debate is about. It's balance, and what we are trying to balance. We are trying to balance, on the one hand, the sharing of as much information as we can with Canadians to live up to that standard of being an open government with, at the same time, ultimately protecting the interests of Canada.
I know my colleague from Windsor West had a chance, just as I did, to serve as a city councillor on Windsor's city council. He served there for many years. He left a legacy there. He was in many ways a pioneer. He blazed the trail for those who came after him, including me, for which I am grateful.
I know that, as city councillors, we all had to find a balance between those two polarities of transparency, and at the same time protect the interests of the country. In that case, they were the interests of the municipality.
When you look at the city of Windsor and you look at most municipalities in Ontario.... I believe there was a study that was done. Every year statistics are published. Most municipalities in Ontario meet in camera probably 20% of the time. That's what the statistics normally say. Those are confidential meetings. Those are meetings that are carried out behind closed doors. Decisions are made by the mayor and city council.
As city councillors we had numerous important meetings that dealt with sensitive issues. Again, about 20% of our time was spent in camera. Some of those issues were sensitive. For example, when we had an economic development partnership, a deal or an agreement, some of that information was not made public. Some of that information was kept in camera.
City council also went in camera for even minor issues. I was sitting in camera when a parking lot was being transferred. Ownership was being transferred of a parking lot worth less than $100,000. We met in camera to discuss the disinvestment and dispossession of that parking lot. It underscores and highlights that, again, like I said, we discussed a spectrum of issues in camera at city council.
Surely a lot of those issues are quite minor compared to what we're talking about here—what's at stake here—which is a $6-billion investment in my community in Windsor. It's 2,500 well-paying jobs for local, Canadian, unionized workers. There's a lot at stake here. It underscores why we're being so careful and cautious with this discussion as we try to find that balance and to strike that balance.
When you look at city councils, even, that are dealing with a whole panoply of issues of various importance, significance and sensitivity, there's a municipal act that governs what is a justifiable basis for a closed meeting.
I want to read a little bit here from a company's website that deals with open government and the Municipal Act and closed meetings at the municipal level. The article from Nelligan Law states:
While municipalities are legally required to ensure their meetings are open to the public, there is provision in the Municipal Act 2001 for certain forums to be private. However, municipalities must assess very carefully whether the limited exceptions to go “in camera” apply.
That's really important when you're looking at that. To read what some of those types of issues are—