Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. I think everything you've said is essentially how the government has been acting, based on its international obligations, how we've been trying to be very clear about what we are doing. In fact, I'm not the only person speaking to committees of Parliament or the Senate at the moment. Last night, my colleague, who's responsible for Afghanistan, was appearing before the Senate Committee on Human Rights, speaking about the human rights of women in Afghanistan. On December 2, one of my other colleagues, Elissa Goldberg, whom you may be aware of, will appear before the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights to discuss sexual violence against women and children in peace operations, fragile states, and conflict situations.
I think Canada has a good story to get out there. The narrative is one of caring and strategic application of our values, and I don't think we have anything to apologize for. The impact we've had on Afghanistan is astounding, and the impact we are having in places where we can is really worthwhile listening to.
There is no question that some people may have different views. Certainly the focus of the discussion here today in this group, very narrow as it is, is about terminology. I'm here to tell you that the terminology remains unchanged, and that the actions of Canada have not changed either. This group could have a much broader discussion about the vast plethora of discussions that come out of international organizations, or even domestic ones, but for the narrow discussion that you have given us to look at, I would say that the story of Canada is a good one.