I think that's maybe a bit too far, to be frank. What I'm trying to suggest is that we should be wary of the potential concern that we could prejudice an investigation, but I also know that our committee's mandate is to gather information. It's the RCMP's job to find guilt. Our committee's job is information and evidence, and that's something that I think we do really well, but we have to be certain of that line.
There is a place, I think, Mr. Chair, between the calling of a vote to go in camera, where we can, at the time of the meeting and the hearing, discuss that potential, under the advice of the RCMP. I think that if the RCMP suggest to us that there could be prejudice based on their testimony, at that time I would suggest that the committee entertain a motion to go in camera for the purpose of receiving that information, but until such time, I do think that a public meeting for two hours, for the purpose of transparency to the public, is important to this process.