Thank you very much. I'm a visitor to this committee, so bear with me a bit.
I would be interested in both of our witnesses' responses to the question that everybody here seems to be struggling with, and that is what is an appropriate means of doing our jobs as parliamentarians in this circumstance.
We have been talking about why the public doesn't seem to support this mission. It's a legitimate question. We're parliamentarians. I get calls. I have a large military base in my constituency. Spouses of military personnel call. They ask what the purposes are. These are legitimate questions, and they are legitimate questions for us to ask.
I'm sure all kinds of people are being political about this. It's the nature of what we do, but it's a legitimate question and it's unfair to suggest, when those questions are put, that somehow our motives are anything less than legitimate inquiries by parliamentarians who have interested constituents.
My question is this--Dr. Bercuson said something about every six months it could be reviewed, and so on. What is it that you would propose is the real, appropriate role for parliamentarians? I find it troubling when anyone asks, or somehow equates an inquiry that I might make on behalf of a whole bunch of military personnel--and they are personnel, mud on their boots personnel--and their spouses...I ask something and somehow my support for these people is questioned. It's patently unfair, frankly, but that happens routinely.
My question is, what is the role? What is an appropriate intervention by a parliamentarian who is representing many thousands of Canadians who are interested in this and want to know what we're doing, why we're doing what we're doing, how it's going? These are legitimate questions for Canadians to ask.