I am disappointed, but perhaps relieved as well, that it's not being televised. I believe I'm late in paying my membership dues to the Union des artistes. I might not be in good standing, although that's probably not necessary on CPAC.
Where was I? I was talking about this amendment by Mr. Harris, which I believe was the broadest possible compromise. Briefly, for those joining us for the first time, here is the issue of our debate: it is absolutely unthinkable—I believe there is no other word for it—in a democracy such as Canada's, for us to accept a permanent gag order. That is ultimately what this means. All committee proceedings, without exception, would be held in camera. Since the public and the media would constantly be kept in the dark, they would never—that's also a word of quite extreme scope, but one that says what it means—be able to follow our proceedings, to form their own opinion or at least to inform the member who represents them of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
This utterly unacceptable situation has led us to undertake this marathon of indignation. That is the expression I used on the spur of the moment on Tuesday. We must use every means at our disposal to prevent this procedure from being implemented.
I said there were two hypotheses regarding this motion. I admit I did not specifically say that, under the first hypothesis, this is an ideological approach by the government party. I dare hope that is a pure fabrication on my part and that a Canadian government represented by any party whatever simply cannot have such an obtuse and closed vision of democracy. In a way, I consider it a duty to rule out that first hypothesis. The fact remains, however, that the more time goes by, the more it tends to become settled in my mind.
The second hypothesis, which I hope is the more plausible, is that the government has introduced such a strong motion as a result of proceedings that might divide us, of undesired behaviour that it would not like to see repeated. In saying that, however, I find it hard to imagine what the opposition parties could have done that was so serious and immoral for such a motion to be introduced. However, I still hope that the second hypothesis is the valid one and that, if so, we will collectively be able to find a way to debate the motion. In that way, rather than avoid the issue by saying it will deprive us of our right to speak in public, which amounts to a form of gag order, we would be able to resolve the issue on the merits.
Unfortunately, gag orders are increasingly being imposed. We saw that again in the House of Commons yesterday. That leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to say the least. Like a number of others, I am a newly elected politician. Although I am 51 years old, I arrived in Ottawa full of ideals, probably like those of a young adult who still strongly believes in democracy. I taught that approach for years. I tried to replace the cynicism toward politics with a wave of positivism. I even believe I achieved modest success in that respect in my constituency. That at least was one of the objectives of my campaign. I had three objectives.
The day I won the New Democratic Party's nomination, three close friends who follow politics in Montreal congratulated me. They thought it was interesting that I had won and they were pleased that someone was going to defend those ideas in the public arena. However, they asked me if I really expected to get elected. I thanked them and answered that I had entered the race because I believed in it. I felt I belonged to the Cinderella team. I said to myself that, on May 2, we would see which candidates would be going to the ball. We know how the story ends: I am here because I went to the ball.
My first objective was therefore to defend ideas, which I am doing this morning, in a somewhat bigger forum.
My second objective was to increase the voter turn-out rate and the vote associated with the ideas I advocate in my riding of Trois-Rivières. I admit we started off a few lengths behind, but I thought the goal was achievable. If memory serves me, I had to beat a rate of 9%, the rate from the previous election. I thought that was possible.
My third objective was to achieve critical success, that is to say to conduct a campaign good enough to finish second, hot on the heels of the Bloc Québécois.
My ultimate objective, which I kept secret, was to win. I did everything in my power to win, and I am here today to defend those ideas. That is why I am opposing this motion this morning. And I will do so as long as that is necessary.
This motion reminds me of a French, or at least francophone, expression. I do not know the origin of that expression, but I get the feeling this motion is like killing a fly with a cannon. It's difficult to use a cannon to kill a fly. First of all, the fly is very quick. Even with a cannon, you might not hit the fly, the target. However, no one can fail to see the damage caused by a cannon. Unfortunately, I get the impression this is the image we are projecting to the public through the debate we are conducting on this motion. We are using a cannon to kill a fly. It's a fly that citizens can no longer see, but we are forcing Canadians to see the damage we are making. That is utterly unacceptable.
I fought on Tuesday, I am fighting this morning, and I will fight as long as it is necessary to do so. Why and for what am I fighting? Those are probably the first two questions I had to ask myself. It's all well and good to fight, but I don't think I deserve to be more popular because I have debated this motion for several minutes. That is not what I am seeking either. What are the reasons for, and who are the people related to, my actions?
First, I will talk about the "why" and then I will finish by talking about the "for whom". The reasons concern all the people whom I will then name.
The first reason is to safeguard, as far as possible, a fundamental principle of our democracy, freedom of speech or freedom of expression. I can't imagine how anyone could conceive of the idea, even for one second, of introducing a motion that interferes with freedom of speech. We have seen a lot of this with all the time allocation motions introduced in the House of Commons since the election. This cuts off the right to speak by limiting time and ensuring that every member who wishes to speak on a bill does not necessarily have the time to do so. This is just a cut-off, and it is already horrific. In this case, however, we are no longer even talking about a cut-off, but rather about a clinical death. There is no longer any right to speak in public, which is unacceptable.
I am also fighting this fight—and others are doing it with me—because it seems obvious to me that this way of doing things and this motion, if adopted, can only further foster Canadians' cynicism toward the parliamentary system. The voter turn-out rate is already a fundamental problem. Many people are tearing their hair out—although there isn't much to pull out in my case—trying to make our institution credible. I will have occasion to return to this point later on and to present various statistics and studies.
Consequently, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by adopting a motion banning elected representatives' right to speak. I hope no one finds a way to strip citizens of their right to speak, which would really take the cake. The fact remains that I am already hearing talk about action, bills designed to limit the speaking time of pressure groups on certain development projects and problems with environmental consequences. People who want to speak on those issues are already being characterized as extremists. We are headed toward a society that is not one I want to grow up in. I have finished growing up, but as my father always said, greatness is measured from the shoulders up. So I still have a chance. This also isn't a society I want to hand on to my children or to all my descendants. This fight is vitally important.
For whom is it vitally important? It is undoubtedly very important to give a face to the people for whom we are fighting this fight. I remind you that we are on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The first persons or first groups I am thinking of are obviously all those groups across Canada that are living in a linguistic minority setting. What is the exact term? Are we talking about linguistic minority groups? I constantly mix up those expressions. Can someone help me?
