Oh, wonderful.
Thank you, witnesses, for coming, and I'm glad you had this opportunity to come.
There's an expression, that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. I think we could apply truth, also—that “truth is in the eye of the beholder” many times.
I think that, should you ask for a consensus on this side of the table, you would probably hear a different story. You weren't here when the witnesses were questioned at the last meeting, but most people would agree on this side that they were quite badgered and were treated with great disrespect, as a matter of fact.
We argued at the outset that we should wait, and that you, Mr. Marleau, in your investigation would come to an outcome; that the truth would...that if we have done wrong, then we have to face the music.
Mr. Wallace spoke eloquently, I think, and he's been quoted in the press. The unfortunate thing is that of course this looked like an attempt by us to try to squash the truth, but we tried to convince the committee that your office would come out with a proper outcome. You've told us that the truth will come out.
I know I asked some pointed questions at the very end. I think I had 30 seconds and I asked, “Did a minister ever ask you to change or redact something, and would you do it?” She gave straightforward answers, so that's on the record. That's going to be addressed as well.
But you also tell us—and this concerns me and this is part of my question—that the report cannot be made public unless the requester agrees to making it public—