Mr. Chairman, the only two meetings I'm aware of that were held in camera, other than the one you held about a year ago, were two at the beginning, dealing with the first three contracts of what became known as the sponsorship scandal. For the two people in question, we made an agreement that the testimony would be made public after two years if no charges were laid or, in the event that charges were laid, after all proceedings had been dealt with. It was the full intention that the public accounts committee testimony be made public.
I'm a great believer in the public accounts committee doing its work in public. I'm totally opposed to any kind of in camera meeting, with the exception of when we're doing our own internal business. I would rather proceed cautiously, Mr. Chairman, than foolishly, and therefore I said I will support asking for the audit. I will oppose the other three points because that would, as far as I can see, bring out the names of people who have not been charged and, as far as I understand, will not be charged. To put the names out in the public domain as being potentially culpable, with no right or opportunity for defence, is not the way we do things.
I appreciate what Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is saying. I'm fully supportive of bringing a member of the RCMP in here to see how they explain themselves, but I think we are best to leave the actual reports themselves where they are.