I'd like to make a few comments.
Firstly, the word “yesterday”, that is March 28, 2007, should be substituted for the word “today”, to make it clear that the reference is to yesterday's meeting.
Secondly, I believe both sides agreed this morning that this should be a temporary list for the moment and that additional names could be added later. I thought we agreed on that, but I don't know if this can be reflected in the resolution. In any case, that's not what's most important.
Mr. John Williams asked why we needed to meet with all of these people. It's important to clarify that these were the names mentioned yesterday. Moreover, that's the purpose of Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion. Yesterday, March 28, we noted that the statements of the witnesses truly contradicted the statements made by some of the individuals whose names appear on this list. In some respects, their testimony was contradictory. If I understood correctly, the purpose of the motion is to help us understand clearly what transpired.
That's all the more important in that during our discussions this morning, we were wondering if an inquiry had been launched. We note that this inquiry is not public, whereas the hearings of the Public Accounts Committee in fact are.
Since we're dealing with a crisis of sorts in terms of public trust in the RCMP, it is important that the testimony given by the different people involved in this matter be public. To restore the public's trust, some of the testimony must be available to the public.
Thank you.