There are a few things. I think we're getting consensus around what Mr. Christopherson and I were saying. Let's do our planning and thinking in private, but we talk to witnesses in public, and whatever goes from there, goes from there.
The other issue is on oath, as Mr. Tardi was saying, and being deemed to be under oath. If I recall, Mr. Chair, prior to Mr. Ouellet, I read out a statement from Marleau and Montpetit where it stated that you're deemed to be under oath. They were advised, if I recall, and the blues will say that or not, of course. It's not as if they didn't know. I think I read a statement to each and every one of them, telling them they were deemed to be the same as if under oath prior to that time.
Perhaps Mr. Walsh or Mr. Tardi or Mr. O'Neal can take a look at that, and if that's the case, then based on your statement, Mr. Tardi, that would seem to be in essence a legal opinion that they were obviously and knowingly under oath. Am I right in saying that?
When we come back, perhaps you can answer that question. Do you feel it would stand up in a court of law if we were to go as far as recommending perjury? Would the fact that they were advised about being before a parliamentary committee and reading that statement from Marleau and Montpetit stand up in a court of law? You can let us know.