Yes, exactly. In French, removing the “San” changes the meaning entirely. It's the equivalent of “No”.
I try to live up to my name.
I think the fact we decided to return to a public meeting to discuss the previous motion shows the relevance of the motion I'm moving this morning. I won't read the motion again.
The motion lists the circumstances that lead to a meeting being held in camera. What we have just experienced this morning is a good example.
Many people follow the work of our committees. The continuation in camera of a meeting that had previously been public without providing a reason could result in a loss of confidence.
Will we carry out part of our work and discussions without the help of those who, by listening to us, take part in our discussions?
I think the people who follow our work are part of our discussions. By adopting this motion, we're showing them that, when we continue a meeting in camera, it will be to discuss benefits, contracts or subjects that are more administrative or delicate in terms of confidentiality. For all the subjects in question, we'll each have a maximum of three minutes to show the relevance of continuing the discussion in camera.
This will provide more transparency for the people following our work. That way, they'll at least understand our arguments and will know which subject will be discussed in camera. They won't see all our discussions, but they'll understand why the meeting is being continued in camera.
I think the goal of this motion is to work more transparently and to respect those who follow our work.