Mr. Chair, the simple answer to that, without being simplistic, is the old adage about beauty is in the beholder. Perjury is what the House considers in its judgment to be perjury.
Having said that, it would want its judgment to be respected, so it ought to adhere to conventional understandings of what perjury is, without necessarily addressing all the legal tests that are required in a court of law for a criminal conviction. Nonetheless, the House ought to adhere to the fundamental principles, mainly that the person failed to tell the truth to the committee when he or she was able to do so and, perhaps for reasons the committee can't explain, didn't do so.
That is the gist of any recommendation to the House that I think this committee would make. This person didn't speak truthfully to this committee when he or she could have done so, and as a result the committee was deprived of the fullness of the information that it ought to have had. You may also then recommend—or you may not—that this person be found in contempt of the House in its proceedings.
But that's the judgment for the House to make as an institution. It's like a court. It's able to defend itself against contempts made upon it in defence of its proceedings. A court can do it; the House of Commons can do it.
For a conviction within the House of Commons, that's for the members of Parliament to determine.