The committee scrupulously avoids partisanship. I think the highest compliment that's been paid to the committee since we began is that a number of folks who have appeared before us have often said that if you were to close your eyes and listen to the conversation at the table, you actually wouldn't know from which political persuasion the commentary is coming.
We built what I think we like to refer to as “a nobility of purpose” around the work. We think there are some issues that transcend partisanship, that transcend any one government, and national security and intelligence is one of those issues.
It was a unique opportunity for Senator Lankin and me, in particular, who have been there since the beginning, to stand up the organization. It was like flying a fighter jet as we were building one. But the purpose of the committee really should transcend my chairmanship, our membership, the senior secretariat staff. It's an important mechanism for the future to allow for a full airing of classified information among colleagues from both Houses to treat these very important issues.
We all respect and understand that what goes on in the other arena, called the House of Commons or the Senate, is natural and is going to occur. The push and pull, the cut and thrust of that, is democracy, but when it comes to access to classified information and the treatment and the handling of that information, and the quiet, non-partisan opportunity to deliberate as colleagues, on behalf of 39 million Canadians, we think this is a really important structure for Canada, going forward, no matter who is in government, no matter who holds the seat as prime minister or minister, no matter what configuration the committee has.
There are comments sometimes about the role of the Prime Minister or of the government in the work of the committee that are, I would say, considerably off the mark. In the nine, 10 and soon 11 reviews that we have conducted, the Prime Minister of Canada has never instructed this committee to do anything. In fact, the only time we consult with the Prime Minister of Canada on our work is when we're presenting our reviews when the product is finished. The Prime Minister has an obligation to instruct the committee to redact, but on very, very transparent grounds.
The team that is here with us today—not just the members, but our senior secretariat folks—is extremely agile when it comes to entering into a discussion with officials in the government to say, let's talk more about that proposed redaction. We always tend towards being more transparent rather than less. We think that's important for Canadians to understand.
The debate that's going on now in the House, the Senate and in society is an important one; it's a really important one, but it's also a teachable moment for a lot of Canadians. For example, what is classified information? Why is classified information classified, and when can it be shared and when can it not be shared, and why isn't it being shared? Canadians get that. They can fully understand that.
We're trying to do our part in helping them understand that, and I'm sure Senator Lankin has much to add to that.