I believe I have the floor, Mr. Williams.
So to suggest that somehow there's some kind of special efficiency built into the word “private”, I would suggest is a little bit misplaced.
First off, I want to congratulate...well, I'll join in with Mr. Williams, seeing that it was a fine way to start, and offer up our support. But unlike them, some of us happen to believe there is plenty of room to be very supportive of our armed services, our individuals, especially the soldiers who are on the front line, and yet be willing to have a political debate about what the mission is. We believe that separation is legitimate and real and allows us to unanimously say there is support for the troops while we perhaps differ on what they've been assigned to do.
Let me just say that I was pleased to see, in the third point, that there's been such satisfactory progress. That's really key for us, taking a look at where you've been and how you've responded to previous concerns that have been raised. I'm very pleased to see this here, and I think it says a lot about the kind of work that's being done. The more I'm involved--and I step in sometimes for my friend on the defence committee--I thoroughly enjoy appreciating and understanding more the professionalism of our services on a firsthand basis, and this just backs that up.
Having said that, I also have a few questions to raise. I'm going to hit a couple of hard questions first. They're not loaded; they are what they are.
Given the fact that we are in the midst of a war, I'd be curious to know whether or not we have an increase in AWOL--assuming we still use that term. I get that from the old movies. But if that's the term, do we have a growing problem with soldiers leaving active service?