Well, certainly.
Going back to the government document that was cited today, quoting from Speaker Milliken's ruling, the mention was that the committees or the House will often agree with the positions put forward by the government as to a basis for confidentiality. Indeed, the fact that committees have the power doesn't mean they have to exercise it in all cases. There are valid, important public policy considerations.
There are many tools that committees can take: looking at documents in camera, having only committee members have access to the information, having briefings done in a confidential matter, or having the proposed redactions reviewed by a third party, which could be my office.
In the case of the Afghan detainee case, in Speaker Milliken's ruling in 2010 there was the creation of a committee with parliamentarians, arbiters and judges. There was a process, but at the end of the day, the last word was for committees and the House.
The process here that was put forward was that my office would review the documents with the possibility of proposed redactions by the government and that an opinion could be given to the committee.