It's interesting to hear my colleague Mr. Martin's nostalgia for the good old Liberal-majority days. I remember them quite differently. The high-handedness on committees was so egregious that on a couple of occasions I actually got up and walked out because things were completely unacceptable to me as a person who believes in democracy.
But to suggest there's only democracy if it's in the full glare of every word being published I think misses an important point. The important point of democracy is that elected representatives do the business of the people and look after their interests in a way that is, as my colleague rightly said, as non-partisan as possible.
Experience has shown—at least my experience—that when the cameras are on—and I have to say I have been guilty of this myself, and some of you might know that—there is sometimes a definite shift in the way issues are dealt with or even the way witnesses are dealt with. I think that at this committee, out of all committees, it's important that from time to time we deal with these things among ourselves without any temptation to take highly partisan approaches to these issues. This is important. Sometimes we know that when we say something, we have to influence just each other. We're not trying to turn the tide of public opinion against the government or against any of the other parties for that matter, but we are dealing strictly and solely with issues. Sometimes that means we need to, let's say, be free from external distractions or from the opportunity to make distractions.
I understand my colleague's good intentions behind this, but I would say that as a committee—which is an important committee—we need to have the flexibility to continue to go in camera from time to time.