Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like my colleague, Mr. Godin, I disagree with your last comment, Mr. Chairman. In fact, in Australia, it says: Witnesses testifying in camera are told prior to their appearance that the committee may subsequently render the testimony public. If witnesses have been given assurances that their testimony would not be disclosed, their written consent is required before any portion of their testimony my be made public.
The first part of what I just read is unacceptable for me. As for the second part, as Mr. Godin said, and contrary to what Mr. Guimond was saying, I think personally, that the in camera status must apply not only to witnesses, but to the entire committee meeting, or the committee itself.
For example, if we go to the trouble of conducting a meeting in camera when the committee hears from a witness to discuss national security or even security on the Hill, as has already been the case, it is because we do not want the information to be made public, or published. If a witness tells us that there is a potential danger of a bomb exploding in some way and we want to keep that information confidential and secret by holding the meeting in camera, the witness must not be allowed to leave the room and make public any evidence he has provided to the committee.