Finally, the NDP has suggested the following process on whether or not a meeting should be in camera. This is for the following purposes, and we'll see whether this falls into the criteria, as eloquently placed by David Christopherson. It says:
That the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes: (a) to consider wages, salaries and other employee benefits; (b) to consider contracts and contract negotiations; (c) to consider labour relations and personnel matters; (d) to consider a draft report or agenda; (e) for briefings concerning national or parliamentary security; (f) to consider matters where privacy or the protection of personal information is required; (g) when conducting an inquiry pursuant to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment; (h) to receive legal, administrative or procedural advice from the House of Commons' Administration; and (i) for any other reason, with the unanimous consent of the Committee.
This was moved at the procedure and House affairs committee. It means that all of the other meetings scheduled by the chair would be public. I thought those are pretty good criteria suggested by the NDP.
I don't think in any way, shape, or form that the amendment forcing the ombudsman, an officer of the Department of National Defence, who reports to the minister and to us as parliamentarians, to meet in camera should ever have been proposed.