Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Again, the concern is that this is something that was already discussed in terms of the routine motions that the parties would agree to, but.... I have seen this motion in other committees before, and especially in a minority Parliament, I don't see the benefit. It's not like the government and the government members can force everything in camera. I think there's an agreement on all sides that it be used sparingly, but I've seen other instances where, again, in my limited experience....
Mr. Julian has been here a while longer, but I've been in camera with PROC, and I believe Mr. Nater was on the committee as well, where we discussed collective agreements. Could one member of one party simply say, “No, we're not going into an in camera session because there's a discussion of that”? On the same committee, we went in camera to meet with a police officer to protect his identity, as he or she was discussing issues regarding hate crimes. It wasn't an issue of national security, but it was an issue of personal security. Why would we allow one member the ability to prevent that witness from speaking?
Again, the government can't impose its will that everything be in camera and hide things that are unnecessary, but in carving it out and being so specific, we're giving opportunities...including for the government. If the opposition wants to hear from a particular witness on an issue of security or something, where they need to have their identity protected, one government member could say, “No, it needs to be out in the open.”
I think we're setting up for failure and potentially preventing witnesses from being heard who should be heard in camera.