Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Then I will continue reading:
The right of parliamentarians to freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985. Section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act confirms that the Senate and the House of Commons each enjoy all of the privileges of the British House of Commons at the time of Confederation. This includes the parliamentary freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 9 of the British Bill of Rights of 1689.
This appears to be a right that has been recognized for more than one generation; let's be conservative. I therefore find it hard to see how anyone could attempt to cut it off by means of a motion.
Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting, and Members and witnesses to do so freely in committee meetings, while enjoying complete protection from prosecution or civil liability, or, in the case of witnesses, reprisals, for any comment they might make.
I will not go so far as to say that the wording of the motion suggests any reprisals, but I will be confused, to say the least, until the reasons for it, the ins and outs of it, are explained to us, and no one wanted to do that when the motion was introduced.
Members are able to make statements or allegations about outside groups or people, which they may hesitate to make without the protection of privilege. Though this is sometimes criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to be true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental to the privileges of all Members. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members, and witnesses appearing before House committees, were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by any outside body. Although the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech applies to a Member’s speech in the House of Commons and in other proceedings of the House, including committee meetings, it may not fully apply to reports of proceedings or debates published by newspapers or others outside Parliament. Privilege may not protect a Member republishing his or her own speech separately from the official record of the House of Commons or one of its committees. Comments made by a Member at a function as an elected representative—but outside of Parliament—would likely not be covered by this privilege, even if the Member were quoting from his or her own speech made in a parliamentary proceeding.
I am going to read one final passage on the fundamental importance of freedom of speech:
[…] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that that is precisely what I am doing this morning. I am saying what I feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of the electors of my constituency, and a number of other constituencies.
When I became a member of Parliament last May, I was given a number of training sessions, each more relevant than the next. My moment of greatest fear came the day when I was handed a green brick: the book on House procedure. I wondered whether I had to read it all. The answer is obviously yes. How much time do we have to try to understand this highly technical language? Political life has made me see that I am learning pages day after day through the conduct of our proceedings and the political life around me.
So I consulted this reference document to see what it said about in camera proceedings. That is the subject that concerns us here. Here is what I found in chapter 20, which concerns committees. I found it particularly instructive, and I want to share it with you. If you are like me, House of Commons Procedure and Practice probably is not on your bedside table and you must not spend your days or evenings reading a chapter just before going to sleep. And yet it could be an easy way to get to sleep quickly. Rather than count sheep, perhaps you could read a chapter of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
This morning, I will read you a very brief excerpt, but one that I think is utterly relevant in view of the motion we are debating. "Types of Meetings and Activities" is the title of the section I want to talk to you about. It reads as follows:
Committees conduct their deliberations and make decisions within the framework of meetings. In order to accommodate the wide variety of subjects that they may be called upon to examine, committees have a range of meeting formats from which to choose. They sometimes engage in other types of activities in addition to regular meetings.
I admit that all this is still a little vague. Does it refer to informal meetings? Perhaps it is a meeting of the steering committee, but I admit this is still a little bit vague.
Further on, reference is made to public meetings. This is interesting:
Committee meetings are ordinarily open to the public [...]
It states that there may be exceptions because there are very definitely situations where in camera meetings are called for, required, even necessary, but meetings are ordinarily open to the public and to the representatives of the media. That's interesting.
The document adds:
Simultaneous interpretation services are offered to committee Members, witnesses and members of the public.
So there is a concern not only that all Canadians should be able to follow the proceedings of the committees, but that they should be able to do so in their language, to be sure they grasp and understand the essential points, and I would even say the details.
The best paragraph is the following one, entitled "In Camera Meetings". It seems to me this is entirely related to the motion. I remind you that the French language is so precise that I find it hard to see how this can even be debated. The paragraph begins with the words "On occasion". Do I need to extrapolate, to define or to say more about what "on occasion" means?
On occasion, a committee may decide to hold an in camera meeting to deal with administrative matters, to consider a draft report or to receive a briefing.
It specifically states that committees may sit in camera on occasion. The paragraph even indicates the reasons why that should be done on occasion. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is light-years away from the motion "That the Committee business of the Committee be conducted in camera."
Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure usually meet in camera.
I don't think our committee is a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Committees also meet in camera to deal with documents or matters requiring confidentiality, such as national security.
Perhaps I need some help from my colleagues because it does not seem to me that we have dealt with national security issues calling for in camera sessions in the past nine months. Nor does it seem to me that we have dealt with delicate issues calling for confidentiality. Consequently, I find it even more difficult to understand why Mr. Menegakis has introduced this motion.
Depending on the needs, a committee may conduct one part of a meeting in public and the other part in camera.
We have never been formal about that; we have even accepted it. I would even say that this is probably the essence of the amendment introduced by Mr. Harris.
Committees usually switch from meeting in public to meeting in camera (and vice versa) at the suggestion of the Chair, with the implied consent of the members. If there is no such consent, a member may move a formal motion to meet in camera. The motion is decided immediately without debate or amendment.
This is precisely what has put us in our current situation.
The committee decides, either on a case-by-case basis [...]
All these words tell us that we cannot establish as a permanent rule something that must be occasional. As I was saying:
The committee decides, either on a case-by-case basis or as a routine motion, whether a transcript of in camera proceedings is to be kept.
That goes without saying.
Minutes of in camera meetings are publicly available, but certain information usually found in the minutes of committee meetings is not included. Neither the public nor the media is permitted at in camera meetings [...]
That goes without saying. This is what we are fighting.
[...] and there is no broadcasting of the proceedings. Usually, only the committee Members, the committee staff and invited witnesses [...]
I admit that brings a little smile to my face. I repeat:
Usually, only the committee Members, the committee staff and invited witnesses, if any, attend in camera meetings.
Every time we have gone in camera, we have asked the witnesses to leave.
Members of the House who are not Members of the committee normally withdraw when the committee is meeting in camera. However, the committee may allow them to remain in the meeting room [...]
We are even more generous.
[...] just as it may allow any other individual to remain.
I find this document particularly instructive. I hope you do as well because we would do well to comply more with the letter, or at least the spirit, of our parliamentary procedure guide in this chapter and in the chapter on in camera proceedings.
We are wondering whether we in this country want a government that governs openly or whether, as I said on Tuesday or last week, we want to go back to an obscurantist approach. Is it in The Best of All Worlds, by Aldous Huxley, that everyone except the main character is monitored and controlled by Big Brother?
