Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Owen, I think the point you raise about fairness and natural justice is exactly right. That's exactly the question that needs to preoccupy us in terms of the kinds of procedures that might be adopted.
In one sense I suppose it's not that surprising that rules haven't been laid down, because it has been relatively infrequent until recently for evidence to be heard in camera relative to the bulk of evidence that is heard. I think it's as part of the evolution of committee work and its increasing sophistication that it's going in that direction.
I remember some decades ago when a Standing Committee on Justice was travelling around to the various correctional facilities and hearing testimony from inmates. That was done in camera, but it wasn't transcribed; that was to give people a sense that they could speak freely.
In one sense it's not surprising that we're now coming to actually wrestle with this question. I think setting down guidelines for when hearings ought to happen in camera so that there's a compelling reason for it in the first place and then ensuring that everybody who takes part knows why it's going on in that particular way and knows under what circumstances that confidence might be lifted are important parts of that natural justice that you're talking about.