Mr. Chair, for further clarity.... I understand the point that Mr. Cooper is making, so this raises an important question. Is the suggestion that the information that was available to members in camera during the last session be put into a document that is then made public? In other words, in terms of the in camera testimony, is the suggestion that it now be made public in the form of a summary that the committee considers with public knowledge, or is the suggestion simply that in camera testimony from the previous session be provided in a summary document in camera?
My follow-up question is more technical and for the clerk—because I don't remember. I haven't read the rule book in a little bit. Would a new member of PROC, who did not sit on PROC in the previous session, not have access to in camera conversations that took place?
For example, Ms. Normandin wasn't here.
Does she have the ability to go back and read transcripts of in camera testimony that took place? If the answer to that is “yes”, it renders what he is asking moot. If the answer to that is “no”, then it's a different conversation.
As I mentioned, the second area where I think we need some clarity is this: Is he asking for information that was previously deemed private, by virtue of the fact that it took place in camera, to now be made public?
Those are two points that I think we need some clarity on, either from Mr. Cooper in terms of his argument or from the clerk in terms of the technical component.