Earlier Mr. Poilievre asked Mr. Walsh or Mr. Tardi for his opinion or advice. Mr. Walsh ultimately suggested to him that the committee table a report in the House, but after hearing witnesses. That's like what you said a little earlier. I think that's the solution.
Right now we're wondering whether we should hear these people in public or in camera. It's clear to me that that testimony should be public. I utterly disagree with Mr. Christopherson, who feels that an in camera appearance in a way protects innocent persons. I don't think the fact that the meeting is in camera will lead the committee to decide whether a person hasn't properly answered the questions put to him. The appearance itself and the answers given to the questions we ask will lead the committee to determine whether that person has given contradictory testimony. On the contrary, as one person said a little earlier, I think that a public appearance makes it possible to clear someone and to better understand the process. When we wonder whether we find testimony contradictory, there may be reasons why people have acted in that manner, and that will be public. As I said earlier, I think, for the public interest and for the protection of democracy, this absolutely has to be done in public and everyone must know exactly why the committee has requested a comparative study. Why has it done so? It's definitely not to conceal the facts or to discuss them in camera. It's for them to be made public.
I don't know whether this is the time to introduce a motion, but I'm ready to do so. We may do it later, but I could do it immediately.
I move that we hear the principal witnesses at a public meeting and that the committee then meet to conduct its discussion and prepare a report.