Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to go back to the same questioning that Mr. Harris began. I understand about independence, I understand about neutrality, but I don't think either is the issue. I think that people can be part of an independent structure and can be absolutely neutral in terms of their focus, outlook, and understanding of their mandate, as well as just the basic attitude that they have towards things, but I think it's something beyond that as well.
It's the nature of one's experiences and the kinds of understanding that you develop out of those experiences that determine the attitudes you take. You can act very independently and you can act neutrally, but if you have a certain set of experiences, backgrounds, and understandings, that's what you're more likely to apply.
We've all been part of organizations that have been that way. Part of my background in sports.... What is always said when a question comes up that challenges anything is, “Well, it's a part of the game. It's just a part of the game. It's the way we do things. It's the way we've always done things. It's the way we've done things forever. Others wouldn't understand”.
You get into a lot of boxes because of that and you end up in a lot of unfortunate and inappropriate places because of it. I would think that at the very least the board would be include some civilians, if not all civilians, to bring to that board another set of understandings and ways of doing things--people who may say, “I appreciate that this is the way it has always been done, but really, it's just not appropriate”.
Why is there not at least some civilian presence on the board?