Thank you.
I don't know if I can give any helpful suggestions here. I think we should continue the discussion. I don't know about voting on something. I agree with Jay that we should perhaps wait until Yvon comes back, just so that the NDP is represented at this. If we're going to make any decision, it seems to be only fair that they take part in any decision by vote.
My only comment is that I'm kind of caught betwixt and between, Chair. Like you, originally—and I think I mentioned this on the record at the last meeting—I generally agreed with Monsieur Godin on the fact that in camera means in camera and no exceptions. However—and I think I also mentioned this—what precipitated this discussion was the incident where Mr. Guité, at an in camera meeting, supplied testimony that was later contradicted in public at the Gomery commission, and the Gomery commission wanted to subpoena the in camera testimony and all that sort of stuff.
Exceptions like that will occur, and I'm not sure how to deal with that. On general principle and general practices, I would still argue the fact that in camera means in camera, but there is always going to be an exception from time to time, perhaps.
I think Mr. Owen and I both made a comment on this, about the number of in camera proceedings that take place and that there should be some caution exhibited by chairs before they allow in camera discussions from witnesses to be agreed to.
So I'm not sure how we come to a solution on this. I just think in the particular case of Mr. Guité's testimony, where his in camera testimony clearly contradicted the testimony he gave in public, and not being able to square the circle on that, there doesn't seem to be any fairness or justice. That case is the one exception that I think should be noted.