Part of the problem we have here is the fact that we are having a discussion in a vacuum of fact. What I'm thinking of, for example, on recommendation 1 is that I believe there was testimony both by Vidéotron and by Shaw Communications. The testimony verbatim would be of value to me, and perhaps even to the opposition, to be able to read into the record, because without having come prepared with the testimony of all the people who came before us, we are all, every one of us, working in a vacuum of being able to put it on the table.
I completely accept the assertions that have been made by my friends on the other side of the table when they said Mr. Shaw said this, or Mr. Péladeau said that, or whatever the case may be. I accept that you did that in absolute good faith. You did not in any way, and certainly without any intention, torque it. But I don't know if your recitation of what they said was actually precise, and without that precision, how can we have a discussion?
The second part of the problem is that I'm really wondering why, because it appears as though we are choosing to go down this particular road to do something different with the report than that which was presented to us on Friday.... I don't know really why we're in camera at this particular point. What is the value of our being in camera? All of us are restricted to come out of this meeting and say—and in good faith I will tell you what I will say—that unfortunately the committee at this point has been unable to come to a consensus on a report and the discussions are continuing, period, full stop, end of statement. That's all that we can say.
The fact is that there are some other things that I would like to be able to say, which I am constrained from saying as a result of this being in camera. What is the value of our continuing with this meeting in camera? I understand that it is in camera and it will remain in camera. That's fine, until we decide otherwise. I'm just saying, what is the value of us continuing in camera?