In the original discussion a week or so ago, a point was made of how, historically, the committee has often been made up of, and perhaps even usually made up of, a mix. Currently it isn't. Currently it's all former military people.
When Vice-Admiral Donaldson was here, his answer to one of my questions seemed to suggest that I had said it was inconsequential what somebody's background was. So when the discussion was over I went to speak with him to make the point that I did and about how the makeup of the committee had changed. His point was that he thought it probably evolved this way. When the Governor in Council--and I don't know the words to use--made it known that there were openings and that they were looking for people to apply, it was a whole lot easier for that notice to go out to former military people, and that was likely why the imbalance had resulted.
So then our discussion went on that it may well be the case and that's how it has played out. The question is whether that's a good thing. His point back to me was that he thought it was healthier if there was in fact a mix of people who were involved and that really part of the challenge in any situation, in any court, is that one has to be able to find a way of explaining it to somebody who has lots of other experiences but may not have this particular direct experience. One has to be able to put that person into the situation so that that person understands and gets it. Of course, in anything like this, ultimately it is a public who are determining whether something is appropriate or not, and that public is made up of lots of people who don't have any specific experience but have a “reasonable person” experience to be able to judge.
Vice-Admiral Donaldson's point--which was a point I was trying to make earlier--was how in fact it is a very healthy thing, and a necessary thing, really, for the ongoing health of the reputation of a committee such as this to have that kind of balance there. And if in fact those involved in the military cannot make the case, cannot make others understand the special nature, then in fact they have not met the challenge. So I would very much support what is in the amendment here.