As you know, and as I explained to the committee right at the beginning of the hearings, when Mr. Mayrand first appeared, the committee had instructed me to have him come. He had indicated some concern, basically, about the sub judice convention in that there are ongoing proceedings and this may put him in a position in which he may prejudice or compromise an ongoing investigation or court proceeding.
The chair took a decision to provide him with the assurance that a condition of his appearing would be that he could invoke the sub judice convention, which he did on the second day when it became apparent that, as he put it, in my recollection, the questions he was being asked were in fact the identical questions asked in the court proceedings. His concern was that he would have to answer the questions identically, because they were made there under oath.
Such as it may be, the condition of Mr. Mayrand appearing is that the sub judice convention can be invoked. But he will have to advise us of that and give us the reason, as Mr. Walsh indicated in his letter.
As to the second part, Mr. Tilson, you asked why he is appearing again. I felt that since there were going to be substantial witnesses subsequent to his appearance who may have brought new information to the attention of members and so on, that may have led to further questions the members want to ask him.
He has indicated that he has nothing further to say to the committee. He will be here, and nothing will be said unless members have questions for him that they feel should be answered. It's just an accommodation, because we had him at the beginning and had a whole bunch of other people. If there's anything to be asked, you will have that.
