I'm not sure that this is anything more than an experienced opinion, but that's the only thing I can give you.
We meet regularly, at least every second year, with bodies that do similar work from all over the world—typically 10 or 12 countries with whom we have good relationships. You've heard of the “five eyes”, and there are many others with whom we have good relationships, from countries that are well-established democracies and have very well-established security and intelligence functions. We get a chance to compare and contrast how our systems work versus those of others.
One of the things they say they really like about Canada's system is that basically we have attempted to remove, and have been very successful at removing, the politics from our review of what is probably the most sensitive and potentially intrusive aspect of security and intelligence anywhere. The possibilities are, of course, that people could very seriously, personally, be damaged and that human rights, individual rights, could be negatively affected. It is a very sensitive area. We've managed with our system to remove politics as much as possible. This has gone through more than 25 years now of a very effective, non-partisan process. They like that about us.
They like the fact that our people are able to get into all of the elements of the operation of the security intelligence service, that aside from a cabinet confidence, there's nothing that can be withheld from us. That goes beyond almost any other similar oversight or review body that we encounter amongst our counterparts. They say that's a very positive thing about it that is lost, for instance, in a congressional committee, where partisanship gets in and they're not able to get at a lot of the information because of the fact that these organizations can keep secrets from them.
In those two regards, and in the ability to develop an experienced staff that over the years gets to really know the inside workings, and so in terms of review can be very incisive in getting at the information and the conclusions—for all those reasons—we are told by our peers that they really feel we have a great system in Canada.