Yes, I would agree.
My problem is what “public” means. With the greatest respect, Mr. Chair and Mr. Desjarlais, I suspect we mean different things by “public”.
My notion of a public inquiry is not one that's going to disclose all the secrets to the public. We have two quite successful examples of using part I of the Inquiries Act. One was Justice O'Connor's inquiry into Maher Arar, and the other was Justice Iacobucci's investigation into Abdullah Almalki and other alleged terrorists. They didn't disclose anything that was public, that would satisfy the interest that I think has been created for the public to have a voyeuristic look at what went on.