I would like to say something about that. I think the interpretation of the motion that has just been presented is a little too narrow. When we are dealing with major issues that are directly related to national security or when we wish to receive witnesses who need to share more confidential or sensitive information with the committee, we can always decide amongst ourselves to go in camera at that time. However, the motion being introduced seeks to curtail the types of abuse that occurred in the past.
In the past, I had an opportunity to briefly sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and I have been a long-standing member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We have seen an abusive use of in camera meetings when the government felt uncomfortable or when we had to deal with various hot issues. Often, the members of the opposition are seeing their privileges as parliamentarians taken away. As a result, they can no longer hold the debates that the Canadians who sent them to Parliament wish to see. That is the problem we are trying to solve with this motion.
Before I became a member of Parliament in 2007, I was a parliamentary guide. During the tours, I used to tell people that, in committees, members of Parliament could work together in a non-partisan or less partisan way than what we usually see in the House. However, since I became an MP, the reality has changed completely and, unfortunately, my message to Canadians today would be completely different from that of 2007.
In our view, the government uses in camera meetings only to hide behind the rules and to avoid being as accountable to Canadians as it should be. Canadians deserve better. Debate on public safety is important and affects everyone. The motion we are presenting would enable us to do our job as MPs better, and that is why I fully support it.
I thank my colleague for introducing the motion today.