The call for transparency as a pillar of democratic renewal is spot on. However, the current trend in House of Commons committees is to move discussions "in camera" whenever things get contentious. This procedural tactic effectively scrubs the debate from the Hansard record. Real accountability requires that we stop allowing MPs to turn off the microphones when they are drafting the reports that shape our laws.
Sorry, for the dumb question but, do you mean that if it’s not “on camera” it’s recorded instead?
The way a read your comment was that when the Camera is on there is no real debate/ discussion. So it’s better to just have the record so there isn’t space for performance politics rather than real work being accomplished.
It is not a dumb question at all. It is confusing Latin jargon that Ottawa loves to use.
In the context of the House of Commons, "in camera" actually means the exact opposite of being on film. It translates to "in a room" or in private. When a committee moves in camera, they kick out the media and the public. They also turn off the recording equipment.
This means there is no Hansard transcript produced for those sessions. The public has no way of knowing who said what or how a deal was reached. My argument is that we need those transcripts to understand how our laws are actually made.
A prime example is the recent ArriveCAN investigation by the House Committee on Government Operations (OGGO).
While the public saw the explosive testimony regarding the $60 million app, the committee went in camera to actually draft the final report (Report 18). This means there is no Hansard record of the "horse-trading" that occurred. We don't know which MPs fought to soften the language or remove the names of specific officials from the final conclusions. We only see the sanitized result.
Thanks for the reply and education. It’s quite unfortunate that the terms are so confusing without that “parliamentary” context.
I both love and hate jargon. I like the specific meaning, but in general conversation it’s just not understood.
Now that I understand the context I agree. Random question for you.
Do you know of any organizations or information on how parliament could be reformed? Or even just a good book recommendation to learn more about parliament?
The Samara Centre for Democracy is the standout organization for this. They treat Parliament like a workplace and conduct exit interviews with former MPs to track exactly what is broken. They use that data to propose specific fixes like loosening party discipline so MPs can speak more freely.
For a book, pick up Tragedy in the Commons by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan. It uses those interviews to explain why well-meaning people often feel powerless once they get to Ottawa.
If you ever want to check the raw rules yourself, the official manual is House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It is free on the parliamentary website and explains every Standing Order the Speaker uses.
This is a supportive piece of documentation that shows foreign (USA) interference in our political landscape. Yes. It names names: https://open.substack.com/pub/thedemocracydefender/p/whos-behind-the-hard-right-in-canada?r=p9zz0&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
The call for transparency as a pillar of democratic renewal is spot on. However, the current trend in House of Commons committees is to move discussions "in camera" whenever things get contentious. This procedural tactic effectively scrubs the debate from the Hansard record. Real accountability requires that we stop allowing MPs to turn off the microphones when they are drafting the reports that shape our laws.
Sorry, for the dumb question but, do you mean that if it’s not “on camera” it’s recorded instead?
The way a read your comment was that when the Camera is on there is no real debate/ discussion. So it’s better to just have the record so there isn’t space for performance politics rather than real work being accomplished.
Did I read that right?
It is not a dumb question at all. It is confusing Latin jargon that Ottawa loves to use.
In the context of the House of Commons, "in camera" actually means the exact opposite of being on film. It translates to "in a room" or in private. When a committee moves in camera, they kick out the media and the public. They also turn off the recording equipment.
This means there is no Hansard transcript produced for those sessions. The public has no way of knowing who said what or how a deal was reached. My argument is that we need those transcripts to understand how our laws are actually made.
A prime example is the recent ArriveCAN investigation by the House Committee on Government Operations (OGGO).
While the public saw the explosive testimony regarding the $60 million app, the committee went in camera to actually draft the final report (Report 18). This means there is no Hansard record of the "horse-trading" that occurred. We don't know which MPs fought to soften the language or remove the names of specific officials from the final conclusions. We only see the sanitized result.
Thanks for the reply and education. It’s quite unfortunate that the terms are so confusing without that “parliamentary” context.
I both love and hate jargon. I like the specific meaning, but in general conversation it’s just not understood.
Now that I understand the context I agree. Random question for you.
Do you know of any organizations or information on how parliament could be reformed? Or even just a good book recommendation to learn more about parliament?
Thanks for taking the time to read my comment.
The Samara Centre for Democracy is the standout organization for this. They treat Parliament like a workplace and conduct exit interviews with former MPs to track exactly what is broken. They use that data to propose specific fixes like loosening party discipline so MPs can speak more freely.
For a book, pick up Tragedy in the Commons by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan. It uses those interviews to explain why well-meaning people often feel powerless once they get to Ottawa.
If you ever want to check the raw rules yourself, the official manual is House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It is free on the parliamentary website and explains every Standing Order the Speaker uses.
We NEED to hear what our reps are saying. Cops turning off their cameras, same thing.
This is what true democracy looks like.
There is nothing of this coming out of Trump 2.0!!