Thanks, Chair.
My first comment in rebuttal to the testimony of Mr. Wark is that I cannot speak on behalf of NSICOP here. I can only speak as somebody who's been a member for the last couple of years, because NSICOP really takes privilege, in that we speak through our reports. The fact is that I do agree that it's very non-partisan, but part of the value of that committee, too, is that everything is done at a secret level, an in camera equivalent, so that it takes away the politicization.
Where I disagree with Mr. Wark is that NSICOP is not that accountability oversight committee. It's a review committee that he talked about. It could evolve. If our current government had decided to start that review two years ago that we need, you maybe could see an evolution of that, and then maybe my bill would not be required. However, that's not the case, and that review process has yet to occur. Again, to push back a little bit, my bill does not guarantee access to anything. It doesn't undermine anything. It just allows members to apply.
That's just my commentary. I'm not looking for a response on that right away.
Professor Leuprecht, I'd like to get you to elaborate on two aspects. One is your commentary because it's been my personal experience as well with in camera meetings and the frank feedback and testimony by our public servants, regardless of their department, whether they're from National Defence, CSIS, Public Safety or RCMP, that there is value in really getting to the crux of some of the security risks we face and allowing Parliament to address the issues and concerns it has to the government of the day.
As well, I would give the opportunity, as somebody who I think has a different opinion from Mr. Wark, to comment on Mr. Wark's remarks.
That's for you, Professor Leuprecht if you want to respond.