Thank you, Chair.
I would agree with Mr. Williams on the last point. I still disagree, though, with the notion of the debate being in public, although I'm still listening.
This is the decision before us right now: do we go in camera to talk about what's in this report, or do we start right into it here? My concern is that inasmuch as we have an obligation to find the guilty, we have at least an equal obligation to protect the innocent. I'm not worried about the guilty being overwrought about having their name bandied about here. I am very concerned about someone who we take no action against and who therefore under the law is innocent when we've made comments about their motivation, their truthfulness, and their character. To me, we've wronged the citizen.
There is a method by which we can avoid that, and again, I'd be interested to hear a legal opinion. It seems to me that our responsibilities lie with us talking about these things in camera. Then everything we decide to act on—if anything—will be made public. It will all be there in the open. And for those who are deemed to have not violated anything—enough that we're going to take action—those discussions die inside the committee room, as they should.