I share the proposition that yes, there could well be information relevant to your mandate that could be injurious or sensitive as contemplated by the Canada Evidence Act.
All I can suggest for the committee, Mr. Chairman, is that it take steps it might be comfortable with that would limit the possibility of such information becoming public. The obvious suggestion is in camera sessions. Some people have reservations about the effectiveness of that mechanism, but you might go in camera with no transcript.
Well, there may be doubts there. In that case, while you are in camera, you might have no transcript and do it as a subcommittee. You go forward that way in terms of limiting the number of people who are exposed, or you seek information in a summary form, as Mr. Breithaupt mentioned. In some cases, summaries are made available or names are removed.
It seems to me--and I haven't examined the detailed cases he mentions--that what the courts are concerned about, in addition to the harm caused to the country in its international relations, is the harm it might cause to individuals, to informants and others who may have been identified and may suffer reprisals.
There may be steps you can take of a kind that could make the information still useful to you and useful for your report, but not identifiable as to its source or harmful to the international relations of the country.