Evidence of meeting #24 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I challenge your decision, please. There are procedures in that case.
NDP
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was saying that the following was written in Whitehorse on September 1, 2010:
Governments at all levels in Canada should embrace open government principles to enhance transparency and accountability.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Yvon Godin
Go ahead, Mr. Gourde. If it concerns the same matter, I will stop you right away.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am introducing a motion of non-confidence in you since you acknowledged my challenge to your decision.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Yes, it is a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is—
Conservative
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
May I go ahead? This is take four:
Governments at all levels in Canada should embrace open government principles to enhance transparency and accountability.
I don't think "transparency" and "accountability" go together with "in camera".
In a joint resolution issued today, federal and all provincial and territorial Access to Information and Privacy Commissioners are endorsing and promoting these principles while calling on their respective governments to demonstrate their commitment to a culture of openness.
It seems to me that, at the very least, the government—
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
This is not a point of order; it is a motion of non-confidence—
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
It is a motion of non-confidence in the chair.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Yvon Godin
Wait a moment and take a breath. The Standing Orders clearly state that no motion may be introduced during a member's speech. I explained earlier that Mr. Gourde had not stopped speaking. I asked Mr. Gourde to stop. It is the chair's duty to maintain decorum. I did not give Mr. Gourde the floor.
I do not acknowledge that this is a point of order. I therefore hand the floor back to Mr. Aubin.
Continue, Mr. Aubin.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know whether you're still following me, but let's hope so. I'll continue:
"Open Government is about promoting a new way of viewing the role of government and the participation of citizens in it," says Yukon Ombudsman and Information and Privacy Commissioner, Tracy-Anne McPhee. "Knowing what kind of information Canadians want and making it proactively available is a fundamental feature of an open, democratic and transparent government."
We are talking about open and transparent government. It seems to me these two documents should be consistent with the motion before us, but that is clearly not the case. I continue:
The Open Government Resolution is the product of the annual meeting of Canada's Access to Information and Privacy Commissioners from federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions across Canada, being held in Whitehorse, Yukon.
I remind you that that was written in 2010. That resolution has already been adopted and we as committee members have to study a motion that states: "That all Committee business of the Committee be conducted in camera."
I continue my reading of the document:
Around the world, many governments have recognized that providing better and free access to their information promotes citizen engagement, instils trust in government and ultimately results in a more open and responsive democratic government.
The resolution is available on the websites of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
It is quite extraordinary that, in this process in which the government is trying by every means to involve citizens in political life and the development of their own country and destiny, it suddenly wants to exclude them from the discussion. It is not always debates, but even this morning things have been somewhat acrimonious in the past few minutes. Most of the time, we hold discussions around this table, and I do not see the entire point in conducting them in camera.
Out of a concern for transparency, I had the idea that we could consult the citizens of this country. I wondered how I would go about doing that. That obviously somewhat betrays my age. I am a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to information technology and social media. Although I did have to get involved in it to some extent in the last election. I spend some time on Facebook and Twitter. They are media that I master, not completely, but I have managed to surround myself with staff members who do very well in that area as they are a few years younger than their employer.
The idea was therefore this: I wondered why not call upon those I have been talking about from the outset to ask them whether the cause I support and the fight I have been fighting in the past few minutes now is really what they also want. The idea is to ensure from time to time that what I believe is representative of the citizens who elected me and whom I represent, as well as the citizens that we all represent across the country. The idea is to determine whether this message can be expressed and whether citizens can have a say in the matter. I then had the idea of sending a brief letter that I would like to read to you and that you will find on my Facebook page. I unfortunately don't control the number of times this letter has been copied since it was submitted, but it seems to me the wording was good. It suggested he following:
For some time now, with my official opposition and third party colleagues, I have been engaged in a real marathon of indignation.
Obviously, the "marathon" concept here is stylistic flourish since I don't intend to run 42 km around the table as I speak.
I'll continue reading my letter:
The focus of this indignation: a tenacious and determined battle to prevent the Conservatives from voting an undemocratic motion. This motion would require "that all the work of the Committee be held behind closed doors."
I deliberately included the actual wording of the motion, knowing that, for the average citizen or a large majority of citizens, it will probably be difficult to know what the expression "Committee business of the Committee" means, but ultimately, the motion being what it is, let's not betray it.
I continue:
In other words, with the exception of listening to witnesses invited by the committee, all discussion on all subjects would always be done in secret. Therefore, the public and all Canadians would no longer be informed of the parties' positions on the issues being discussed. Another consequence, media would be denied public broadcasting of all our debates. In our opinion, this is a serious encroachment, an attack even, on the freedom of speech of the parliamentarians who represent you, and on the foundation of our democratic system. This motion will be stopped when the opposition members have exhausted their right to speak or when the governing party withdraws its motion. If you wish to support our action, you can personally participate in this marathon of indignation by sending me a letter expressing your own outrage regarding the Conservatives' act of force to muzzle us. [...] Starting Thursday morning, February 9, 2012 at 8:45 a.m., I will take the floor and be ready to read your letters so that together we can try to make the Conservatives, who are multiplying infringements on freedom of speech and democracy, listen to reason. Thank you for supporting us in this struggle.
I toss that out like a bottle into the sea, wondering whether I'm speaking on my own behalf or whether I am really representing citizens.
