I just want to underscore what my colleague Mr. O'Toole said about the need to have at least a portion of the meeting in public.

I fully agree that there may be some issues that Mr. McCallum wishes to brief the committee on that should be discussed only in camera. There may be security concerns or things that should be said only for the ears of this committee. However, I also believe that at the very least there should be a few opening statements—or at least one opening statement—from the ambassador as to the current state as he sees it. After all, he is the Canadian ambassador to China.

Ostensibly he has the ears on the ground in China, and I don't believe there is anything he would be able to tell the committee that would breach any security protocols, because it's been widely reported. The media has been all over this story. We all know that, and that's why we're hearing so much in our own constituencies.

I think Canadians, as Mr. O'Toole has said, would welcome at least a few words from Canada's ambassador to China on the current state of affairs, without breaching any security protocols whatsoever.

I think all on this committee are in agreement that if there are areas Mr. McCallum wants to brief this committee on that are highly sensitive, they should be in camera. We have a committee in Parliament that deals with national security issues, and nobody knows anything that goes on within that committee because of the security provisions and protocols in place and the sensitivity around many of the issues that committee deals with.

While I can understand the concern of this committee to have statements by Mr. McCallum in camera, I honestly believe that if there is at least something he can say to perhaps give some assurances, if nothing else, to Canadians, then that should be in public.

Transcript

Discussions (0)