Being a non-lawyer, I'd just like to get a result. Quite frankly, we're arguing moot points back and forth like this. I see two dilemmas here. Number one is whether or not this can or should be made public to this committee. We have a legal right, arguably, and then we also have a responsibility as a committee to act in a moral and proper manner as well. We as parliamentarians have some enormous responsibilities. We cannot just decide that there is the legal ruling and we'll go ahead and do it. We have other responsibilities as well. Obeying the law is one thing, but we have to pass some mature judgment as to where we go with this case.
In a particular case like this, what we're talking about—if we accept the letter from Public Works—is 12 seconds' worth of tape. If we're talking about 12 seconds' worth of tape, why wouldn't we just go in camera and hear those 12 seconds' worth of tape? We're not worried about the Privacy Act when we're in camera, and we can see if the committee finds it acceptable or not. At the end of that, we know we can pass judgment.
I think it's a totally separate issue whether or not there is more time that has not been reported by Public Works, or by error, or rightly so by Madame Faille. I think we could go down another road with that, and that's something that potentially we should have validated one way or the other with the work that was put into that. Right now, these tapes, I think we're just going around the whistle-jerk here. There's really no reason for this. Let's just go in camera and hear what the words are and then make a decision on that and enter it into the committee's words.