Mr. Tardi, you said that, in the process that the committee could adopt, what ultimately counted—this is the most important sentence that I retained—was the public interest. That's what should guide the decisions and orientations that the committee takes. What led the committee to request a study on discrepancies in testimony is that people testified before the committee before going to the Gomery Commission and there were fairly significant discrepancies. We read that. It is indeed the public interest that led the committee to wonder whether a committee of the House had been abused.
The new federal Accountability Act that was passed provides for penalties for the future, but the public wants to know whether there has been any misconduct and whether it will be punished. You say that the credibility of democracy depends on this decision. Many people are expecting potential effects in various areas. Some people have been prosecuted in court, but there were discrepancies, and the public realized it. People said things here and the contrary in the other place, with some minor differences, as you noted.
Like Mr. Williams, I believe that the committee should hold public hearings, but first it should hold an in camera meeting to determine how to proceed and the direction it should take.
Is what I've just said consistent with what you said about the public interest?
