Mr. Chair, I am a little ambivalent. On the one hand, it seems to me that Mr. Davies' arguments could convince me more to hear from the law clerk in camera to avoid the perception that parliamentarians would be exerting undue pressure.
On the other hand, there were allegations about the motion voted on in the House. According to some, the motion could harm research, contracts and the development of a vaccine. Under those conditions, I believed that it was possible to establish benchmarks indicating the point to which we could go in our questioning, in our future study and in our way of working on this motion in public. I thought we would have some guidance in that regard, and that is one of the reasons why I wanted to see the law clerk. There was quite a strong collective reaction and it has gained ground recently. I am also sensitive to that.
Our position was that there was no problem. However, in the event that we were to cross a certain line in our work, which should be open to the public, it would be helpful for us to have benchmarks. I also believed that the law clerk would set those benchmarks along the path. If I am mistaken, just tell me.