Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in relation perhaps to the topic of witnesses, having spent a number of years on previous committees--and I imagine this is likely the same practice for this committee--when we are deliberating in terms of the numbers of groups and the types of witnesses that we will bring before the committee we tend to do this in camera. There are a number of good reasons. For instance, when I was doing this in the past I was dealing with a number of first nations groups, and we tried to have some regional balance and we tried to accommodate needs based on economics, etc. It is important to have a cohesive message in terms of the actual final list versus perhaps the debate that might occur in preparing that list.
It's been a good practice in the past to do it in camera, as we wouldn't want to necessarily indicate preference per se. Perhaps there are groups that might feel they should be included versus others that are selected for reasons that might have to do with regional balance or other matters such as that. It is a good practice that has worked well for other committees, and for this committee probably as well.
In terms of this motion by Madame Lavallée, there has been some opinion on both sides of this matter in terms of whether it should be in camera or not. The in-camera practice typically has been extended to witness selection. I'm not sure that is a practice in relation to motions, debates on items such as this. Maybe I'm just extending an opinion on that, though. I don't necessarily disagree with what Mr. Angus said. I just think perhaps the in-camera idea is more relative to witnesses.
So perhaps I'll leave my comments there.