Well, Mr. Chair, I think it's unfortunate that we're using the words “closed-door hearings”, because in fact the task force isn't really a hearing per se; it's a group of individuals who are tasked with doing fact-finding. How they do that, especially when it's on an informal basis, is up to the task force to decide. I've been involved in a number of task forces over the years. Those have never been public hearings per se; they have been fact-finding missions.
I just want to counter something Mr. Angus said. He suggested that the task force will then “decide”. I didn't hear Mr. von Finckenstein say “decide”. In fact, the role of a task force is to report.
As you know, Mr. Angus, Mr. von Finckenstein made a commitment that the report of the task force—not the decision, the report of the task force—will be made public. This committee will receive that report. At that point in time, we, as a committee, can determine whether we perhaps want to hold our own public hearings on that task force report. The minister can decide to hold her own hearings. But to suggest now that somehow this is a conspiracy of silence to try to hide information that the task force is going to ferret out is highly irresponsible.
Let's give Mr. von Finckenstein the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's moving forward in good faith. We have no evidence to the contrary. Let's give him an opportunity to do the fact-finding, to prepare his report, which will then be presented to this committee. At that point in time we will have an opportunity to hold public hearings if we believe that's necessary. At the same time, that report is going to the minister as well. The minister may take some action, the CRTC may take some action, based on that report, but the task force itself is not a body that will make the decision.