I don't know if this committee went across Canada. One way to spread the word is to ask the House for permission to hold hearings across the country. It's for Parliament or for the government to provide additional funding to think tanks and academics so that there can be more discussions.
I'm not directing this at a particular government, but I argued until I was blue in the face when I was still working that sharing more information publicly is possible. Governments, generally speaking, don't like to talk about national security. That's not an irrational position, but I do think that sometimes if you aggregate what you're talking about up a level or two, we can be more open. I don't think your goal is going to be met unless we're willing to be a bit more open.
I'm not talking about operational secrets that would worry my two colleagues, but if people read the CSIS annual report, for example, they would see that there's a lot in there every year about the kinds of threats we're facing. Maybe we should ask the Department of National Defence to produce one on the military front—things of that nature.
I think it's going to have to be a multi-pronged effort with the things that I've talked about, and probably a whole raft of others, such as y'all—if I can use an Americanism—getting out on Sunday morning talk shows and talking more to the media about these things in a non-partisan way.
I've worked long enough with politicians to know that's not easy, but I would submit with great respect that when you deal with military and foreign policy, it should be easier. We haven't seen a lot of that. I think that if there's some way of developing a little more unity of language between the political parties, it would help a lot.