If someone wishes to amend the motion, of course that would be in order too.
In reference to the clerk's comments, and I know the clerk is not engaging in any debate on this issue, obviously the motion here would change the so-called tradition or the usual practice. That's the purpose of the motion.
Our party has presented similar motions in most committees—as perhaps the clerk is aware and as are other members, perhaps, who sit on other committees—where we have seen the Standing Orders or the in camera rule being used to avoid anything that has political controversy.
We're trying to seek transparency in this committee and in other committees. This motion is here for that purpose. We don't want people to be hiding behind in camera meetings and fail to face up to matters that they really should be taking a position on in public.
That's the purpose of the motion, and we stand behind it.