All right.
Mr. Chair, seriously, with all due respect, I'd say that for a long time, I studied this issue with my colleagues, notably with Ms. Hirtle, with whom I sat at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Here's my question. Why are we talking about this here, when this is an issue specific to veterans, and we can see that there are still some connections to be made in terms of coordination and communication?
Mr. Thompson, honestly, I feel we have everything we need from a political strategy perspective. As you know, we're dismantling the entire structure with Bill C‑39. People may not be aware of this, but what's coming is serious. You'll have free rein, but on the other hand, you'll have a directive coming from above, and you won't be able to follow the process you're following now. This is serious.
I get the impression that we're trying to buy time because before long, we'll be facing decisions that have already been made. Ultimately, when it comes to using the land, what's needed is in place, so we're making political gains. Let's be honest, we talked about the Amherst armoury, but we could talk about why so much focus is being placed on it. Technically, if there were any political will to help veterans, we wouldn't be looking at whether we'll be able to use surplus buildings and then be patting ourselves on the back for having done the job. I feel like it would have already been done.
Do you agree? What we're going through won't help you make decisions, because technically, there would have been political will beforehand. I know you can't answer, but I'd like to hear your comments on the subject, so I thought I'd give it a try.