Thank you.
In reference to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's comments, of course, I was referring to a criminal investigation file that was never made public. Perhaps the parties named were never even aware of the names in there and what was said about them, and to make that a public document would not be appropriate if they were not to be charged. I understand they weren't going to be charged because the time ran out.
But this is different. First of all, I'd say Parliament is an institution of accountability, Mr. Chairman, not an institution of management. I've said this many times in a different vein: we are an institution of accountability.
I understand Mr. Christopherson's concern about using people's reputations in public when they are innocent. But we have been given public statements they made under oath here and there, and if there's a discrepancy between them, it's not as if they're being caught unaware; they made these statements in public. We're asking them to say, if you said black today and white yesterday, why is there a difference?
Mr. Chairman, I've thought about this and I think perhaps we should meet in camera to discuss our strategy and the comments that have been brought before this committee. As Mr. Walsh says, there's no point in handing all the evidence over to the people and then say, work out a good excuse and come here and tell us what your good excuse is. It doesn't advance accountability very far.
So I think we should have the people here in public. Another reason to meet in public, Mr. Chairman, is that if we were to table a report in the House of Commons—and I think we would certainly table a report—naming names and giving the discrepancies between what they're alleged to have said or actually did say, and they find the report coming right out of the blue, with no opportunity to defend themselves because the meeting was held in camera, it would be even worse than having the meeting in public where they could defend themselves in public.
If we do have meetings in camera, Mr. Chairman, I'd go back to the meetings we had with Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Guité in 2002, I believe, where the testimony was in camera, but there was a process by which it would be made public at a later date if, as, and when no criminal charges were laid, or after they were all obviously concluded. If we do go in camera to discuss strategy, I would suggest the same thing, that after everything is over, the meeting's minutes or blues be made public. If we are a democratic country, a democratic parliament, doing our business in public, as we ought to, then to do things in secret is never a good idea—never a good idea.