I've listened to what my colleagues have said and I support what each of them has said. I think we do a relatively good job in Canada, but I think there are ways we could make improvements too. I'm delighted that you're here to look at the Canadian system. I'm wondering if you're travelling to other countries as well; maybe I can get that from you later.
I've met with some of the people from the European countries to discuss with them how their parliamentary oversight works and how their relationships work with both the ministers and the departments--which are separate, here in Canada; the department is separate from the Minister of National Defence and has its own leadership, although at the political level it's the minister who's meant to make the decisions.
In some European countries they actually assign a person from the department--a senior civil servant from the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of National Defence--to each of what they call in Europe the “parliamentary groups”. These groups are what we call our parliamentary caucuses. When I asked about that, because it seems like such a different way of doing things, they were very strong about it. They felt that the direct link from the opposition parties to the department really fostered a better understanding by the opposition parties of the key issues and of how the department worked.
They did say, however, that there had to be a very high level of trust from both the bureaucrat who's assigned to the opposition party and from the opposition party in relation to that bureaucrat. It was an interesting concept to me. They felt that it gave a much better nationwide approach to things like national defence and foreign affairs.
I don't know if you're travelling to other countries, but that's one thing.
Tomorrow night we will have four hours in the House of Commons to question the minister. I think questioning on expenditures is the basis for it. It will be an interesting process, if you're around to watch some of it.
Also, I was interested to know that you're here to look at how the military is trained in Canada. It's top-notch. I think someone said it's the best in the world, and I think that's an accurate reflection. Canada is fortunate to have a multicultural, multi-ethnic population, which I think gives us an advantage in terms of working internationally. Maybe we have a little higher degree of sensitivity to other cultures--I hope we have that, and I think we do--and other languages as well. I think all of us are proud of the training that's provided for the military in Canada.
On the other point you talked about, the ombudsperson, I agree with you about the language. When I was first in the House of Commons, the chair of a committee used to be called the “chairman”, and when I was chairing the committee I didn't feel very good about that, so we've progressed in terms of committee chairs: now we say “chair”.
I hope you're meeting with the ombudsman here. He's new. This is a position that hasn't been around a long time in Canada, but some very effective work has been done. I think you have an opportunity to learn a great deal. If there is any way we can be of help, we would be delighted to do that.
If you get an opportunity, I'd like to hear about how things are going in the African Union around the DRC and in the campaigns and missions you're working on in Darfur in the Sudan. I know that there are some very difficult situations going on there.
Thank you very much.