The bottom line is that courts hold public hearings. The CRTC is not a court; it's a quasi-judicial body, so it isn't even a judicial body. The argument that there are people who may not want to testify because of conflicts, whistle-blowing, or whatever, is a valid one. There are ways to deal with that; there always have been. But if we get a report coming out of hearings, and no one knows what went on in those hearings, that report could reflect whatever the report chooses to reflect and not what that group heard.
I think we should—and we have the power in this committee—require them to hold public hearings. I have a recommendation to that extent that is a little stronger than the last recommendation, which Mr. Angus made, requiring that they hold public hearings, and at their discretion, when necessary, they can have in camera hearings on special occasions to facilitate special witnesses.
We need to be able to talk about this in public. We need to be able to know what witnesses were called, what the witnesses said, and whether the report reflects what was heard. We can't have quiet hearings. In this day and age, it's not even accountable.
So I would like to be stronger than what this report has basically said.