Thank you.
I guess there are a couple of issues here. We definitely need to know the exact nature. If it is a legal action over the court challenges program, then it's very clear. If there's some variation on that, I think it changes it dramatically.
I'm looking at precedents with our committee in recent years. We had the issue, about which I felt very strongly, concerning having Mr. Rabinovitch come before us during the lockout. That was voted down, saying that there was action being taken and that until the lockout was settled we wouldn't hear from him.
I felt at the time we had the right to hear from him and pose questions on behalf of our constituents, because taxpayers' money was going to them and we were not receiving services; however, that was the position of our committee.
The other issue is, as Mr. Kotto said, the issue of Telefilm, where we had the opportunity to go in camera. I would suggest the situation is somewhat different, even though we at that time decided not to go that route. I would question the point of going in camera on this. We have very strong feelings, I would say, around this committee about the court challenges program; we know what we think of it. Bringing the court challenges program before our committee would be according to our right as parliamentarians to give it an airing, to look at it, to investigate it, to raise the issues. That's why we would be having it. To bring him in camera on this matter is not going to further illuminate this for us.
So the question is this. If some of the main groups have decided on their own to go through another process to have their issue illuminated, which would be to have it investigated and challenged through the courts, then I would suggest our role at that point would even be redundant, regardless of the other aspects. If this is clearly on the court challenges program, then I would suggest that obviously the public groups have made their decision and that we don't have a role in it at this point.