I'd like to clarify that I'm here in a non-partisan capacity. I'm a published author in the area of national security reviews for critical minerals, so that is why I'm here today, as a professor of international trade, respected in my own right.
On the issue of transparency, I support transparency, of course. I think the government should be as transparent as it can be while safeguarding national security.
On the extent to which the national security process has become more open, I couldn't say in an objective way, because I simply haven't followed it systematically. I think what is really essential for government.... In order to maintain the ability to keep aspects of the national security review confidential—because there are times when I do think there are details that it is important remain confidential—I think that governments need to maintain trust and ensure that they're implementing their own due diligence and following their own guidelines.
I think one of the concerns in this particular case—I did review the testimony where you asked the minister those questions—is that some very basic details weren't being answered. I also think that the fact that this did not go to a full national security review—it was stopped at the initial screening stage—meant that some questions were raised about the extent to which the government's full due diligence was followed. When those questions arise, trust in institutions starts to erode. As trust erodes, that creates problems with public trust as well.