I just want to be clear. It's part of the reason we have committee. It allows us to debate in a very fulsome way whether or not we should move forward on a particular piece of legislation or clauses within that legislation.
I find it strangely ironic that the mover of the bill is actually asking whether you know or understand that this would or would not lead to a statutory holiday. It would seem to me, if I were moving a piece of legislation, that I would have to take responsibility for you not being aware of what my bill did or didn't do, so I'm not so sure the responsibility for understanding whether or not it's a statutory holiday falls on Mr. White's shoulders or Mr. Clark's shoulders. I would submit that understanding comes from you, the government that moves a piece of legislation, or from a private member who introduces his own legislation.
While I find it interesting and I have learned a lot here this afternoon about that particular piece of legislation, I want to go back to the points all three of you were making with respect to intent. I think that's what you were trying to describe whether, like Mr. Blais, you're in favour of the bill, or like Mr. Schellenberger, Mr. White, or Mr. Clark, you are not in favour of the bill. You're speaking to what you believe to be the intent of the bill.
I think it would be helpful for all four of you to tell us what you believe the intent of the bill is, and why it's difficult for your organization, in the case of Mr. White and Mr. Clark, to support the bill, and why, Mr. Blais, your organization....
I was a little hesitant when you said you believed veterans didn't necessarily understand the issue and that, therefore, you speak on their behalf. I wondered why you would refer to your own membership that way. I want to give the two organizations the opportunity to speak more to the intent of the bill, and to why, in the case of the Legion, members don't support the bill and why Mr. Blais' organization does.
