Thank you to the clerk for being here.
I'm quite surprised, I must say, that this issue of the release or publication of in camera proceedings hasn't been dealt with conclusively before, but I'm very pleased to see that it is being considered now.
As a matter of procedural fairness and natural justice, it seems to me that when we are asking witnesses, and even more so when we're compelling witnesses, to come before us and proceedings are being held in camera--and I would make that distinction, as Madam Clerk has, between that and matters of an administrative nature that we're discussing among ourselves or that don't involve witnesses--the proceedings should be highly limited to very restricted points of discussion or issues, and the rules should be very clearly known. It should be the exception that we go in camera when we have witnesses, and the witnesses should be advised, as in the suggestion you made in one of the jurisdictions, of the possibility of disclosure of that evidence at some later date, but within very limited discretion and under very limited circumstances.
One of those circumstances could well be a charge of perjury or suspicion of perjury when there has been contradictory evidence given in the proceedings before the committee or in another proceeding, judicial or otherwise. That is the common exception for the use of testimony that's given in public inquiries and in other proceedings, that they couldn't be used in subsequent criminal or civil proceedings. That seems to be a good exception to the rule, but it seems to me that the honour of the House of Commons can be put into disrepute if someone gives information under the understanding that it will remain confidential, and that confidentiality is broken by the committee, whether it's by unanimous decision or at the discretion of the chair or whatever.
I think there are two things: first, when we hear witnesses, evidence in camera should be very limited to specific categories of situations; second, circumstances for the subsequent disclosure of it should also be very limited and clearly understood by the witnesses and the members of the committee before the evidence is heard.