Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too want to talk more about the second part of the issue that the clerk dealt with, meaning committees that sit while there are votes in the House.
With regard to the in camera meetings, I only want to make a brief comment. We mustn't forget that in camera meetings—and it's the same thing in the courts—seek above all to protect sensitive information. We must ask ourselves what would happen if we retroactively agreed to release in camera testimony. This would have a direct impact on the quality of evidence provided to committees. We could promise a witness coming to testify about national security that the meeting will be in camera, that the individual is completely protected, and that their comments will not be made public outside the room, and nevertheless that individual will ask himself whether it might be possible, in light of a motion passed by the majority of committee members, for the committee to later decide to release the in camera evidence. This would jeopardize the entire committee process and seriousness of committee work. I hope that we, as members of this committee, will seriously consider this.
That was my comment on the in camera question.
I would like to make a second comment, along the same lines as those made by my colleague, Jay Hill. It's probably because, like him, I am my party whip.
I am not in favour of having each committee adopt a motion, I will tell you that right away, because I put more faith in the House, as an entity, than in the chairmanship of each committee. I am not pointing fingers; there are committee chairs representing each party. I think that we should establish a rule and amend the standing orders accordingly.
I will illustrate my opinion with an example. You know that Tuesday is the day when the most committees meet. Today, 22 committees and subcommittees of the House are meeting. We know that there are often votes on Tuesdays. If we agree to allow committees to continue to sit during votes, I believe that this would alter the very make-up of this minority government. In fact, opposition members who would represent the majority on committees and would be obliged to continue their work—because important motions can also be introduced in committee—so they could not take part in votes in the House. We can't be in two places at the same time.
I agree with Jay Hill that our primary responsibility is to go and vote on behalf of the constituents we represent. When we stand up in the House, democracy speaks, the people who elected us expect their representatives to vote for or against various motions. When the public does not like the position taken by its representative, that individual is kicked out. That is democracy.
We would wind up in a situation where we would be literally torn, tortured between adopting a motion in committee and our duty to go and vote in the House. There are more representatives of the opposition than of the government on the majority of the 22 committees and subcommittees sitting today. Consequently, during a vote, this situation would work in the government's favour, which, numerically, would become a majority, although people voted in a minority government.
For all those reasons, I believe that we should amend the standing orders in order to prohibit committees from sitting during a division. I agree with Jay Hill. Furthermore, we must ensure that it would not be possible, through a motion, to allow a majority of committee members to decide, based on a vote, to continue to sit. This must be made very clear, because we know that chairs sometimes try to get ahead.
We need to write in the standing orders that committees may not sit during a vote.