Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.
We've had a full discussion on this. There are other considerations that we may potentially raise. One of them, Ms. McPherson, might be that part (b) of the motion talks about “to attend briefings concerning national security”. One might also consider whether the position of a witness who is precariously positioned because of political or other sensitivities should be protected through an in camera option and if, in that case, it would have to be unanimous, or whether members should be able to vote in those cases by majority to protect the name of that witness, the identity, the geospatial location and the substance of what that witness will tell us. That might be equally important for the committee to consider.
This may also be a motion that we might want to incubate a bit more, especially in light of what Monsieur Bergeron just told us, and see if there's a modulation of the motion that you may wish to reintroduce, or we can see how our practice establishes itself. At a minimum, I would think, it's a backstop to potentially regulate our decision-making with respect to in camera work if members don't feel that it's going in the right direction or that it could be fine-tuned through that motion.
I don't know how colleagues feel. Are there any other points in terms of what we should do with this motion today? Would colleagues wish to vote on it today, or should we have some sideline conversations in terms of the substance and revisit it?
Mr. Chong, go ahead, please.