My only concern about this motion is the unanimous consent motion. I'm in agreement that our priority should be to be open to the public and for debate to be there. I'm just going back to my time served on PROC. I believe Ms. Kusie might have been there during that time, and I know we dealt with a number of issues not related to national security. We dealt with issues related to security of the House. We dealt with issues related to collective agreements. We dealt with other issues that came up, such as business confidences and those types of issues that don't fall necessarily onto that list. I worry that one member, be it a government member or an opposition member, may be able to stifle an opportunity to hear from a witness.
I also remember one witness from PROC who was a member of the Ottawa police force who just didn't want his identity to be acknowledged. It was an issue of his own security and his family's security. I don't know if we'll run into those issues, but if we narrow it too much and give an opportunity for one member to scuttle the opportunity to hear from a witness, that really limits our opportunity to debate, especially if it's on a particular issue of importance that's before the committee. We may have very specific instances. I did bring up that Ottawa police officer with regard to hate crimes. That might have been before Ms. Kusie joined our committee. We dealt with the collective bargaining agreement for the Parliamentary Protective Service. We dealt with legal issues before the committee.
There's more than just that point that can come up. My worry is that any one member can stop a witness from appearing if it comes up.
I see Mr. Bachrach has a response, so I'll stop talking for now.