Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, I will vote in favour of the motion. That's not necessarily related to this committee's past, as Bernard said so well. I agree with him. The fact that members are putting forward such motions is necessarily due to the abuse that has taken place in the past.
This is a Westminster-style Parliament. Members have spaces where they can express themselves and do their work as MPs. They can do their best to improve bills and to study issues that are important to Canadians. Those spaces have to be preserved.
This motion aims to preserve those spaces of freedom where members can work transparently, and where integrity can be promoted in this Parliament. We cannot do our work without that guarantee and with a knife to our throats all the time. That's why I think that fairness and ability to be transparent must be guaranteed. That is what Canadians expect from us. They want us to be able to publicly debate issues that are important to them.
Earlier, Bernard was saying that the motion lacked flexibility. I would have preferred to hear how he would improve the motion, instead of simply rejecting it. That would have been a useful discussion.
I will end my remarks by suggesting that Bernard propose changes that could perhaps satisfy us by guaranteeing that space of freedom and, at the same time, helping achieve a flexibility that has nothing to do with the committee's actual operations. We do understand that in camera meetings are necessary from time to time for certain matters. That's understandable. However, all other kinds of debates must always remain public.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.