Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to in camera meetings, I say unequivocally that when we sit in camera, we cannot change the rules, we remain in camera. I don't want to say the wrong person's name, but I remember that, during the sponsorship investigation—if I'm not mistaken, it was during Mr. Charles Guité's testimony—there was talk of lifting the in camera condition, and I... It doesn't matter, even if it could have cost us the battle. It's a matter of honour. When we invite people here to an in camera meeting, we must respect that confidentiality, unless everyone concerned agrees unanimously, without hesitation, to lift the in camera condition. In this case, that's different.
However, let's suppose that we ask someone to testify—and I agree with Michel on this—and they are told that it will be an in camera meeting and then, later, the evidence is released. Personally, I would no longer want to invite anyone to come and testify before us and speak freely at an in camera meeting. I will never agree to this. I am unequivocal: in camera means in camera.
With regard to committees, I would like Parliament to adopt a standing order. Without wanting to criticize anyone, people in my riding do not know about what I do in committee, they know about my work in the House of Commons because a vote is important. There is no reason...
I remember the case of Brian Masse, who was on the Industry Committee. He really wanted to take part in a vote in the House and was prevented from doing so. It's not right for a committee to make that decision for a member. We make members who are travelling come back so that they can take part in a vote, but in this case, the members were here, on the Hill, just next door, and they couldn't go and vote. Their right to vote was taken away from them. This really is about taking the members' right to vote away from them, no matter what their political party. I don't think we can allow this to happen. If we let each committee decide for itself, then some committees will let members go and vote, and others not. This would be discrimination against members. How could a member explain to his constituents that he could not go to vote, when he was in Ottawa? Could he say that it was because a group representing the majority made that decision? It's must easier to explain why, for emergency votes held the very evening, a member who was in Vancouver, for example, was unable to go and vote, than to explain why that member couldn't go and vote when he was in Ottawa. How can we explain this to our constituents? Furthermore, depending on the subject, our constituents consider some votes to be more important than others.
My question is for the clerk. Ms. O'Brien, you said that, in the past, committee members made their own decisions. Is there something that would prevent Parliament from adopting similar standing orders again?