Well, I don't view that as a friendly amendment, in that case.
I'd just like to state that I understand the sensitivity of not wanting individuals, perhaps, to face negative repercussions inadvertently, and Mr. Williams has confirmed that in the past it has not been a frequent occurrence, but this type of situation would warrant our consideration to go in camera. We do have that mechanism at our disposal. Obviously we prefer public accounts meetings to be public, but it's very important that individuals not face potential negative repercussions. I'm more than willing to look at a friendly amendment that would still allow us access to the type of information that would help us in providing recommendations so that these abuses never occur in the future.
Rank-and-file RCMP officers who put their lives on the line every day are flabbergasted, astounded, that their pension insurance funds would have been abused in this manner. They'd like to see this gotten to the bottom of. The processes that were meant to get to the bottom of that were unable to, and this is one of their last resorts.
There's tremendous respect for the public accounts committee because we do conduct our proceedings mostly in public. But I agree; if there's a friendly amendment that would find a way to protect individuals named, I'd be more than willing—with reservations, but more than willing—to go in camera to protect those individuals for those portions of the reports.