Sometimes when you come into this committee meeting, you never know what's going to happen. It's always interesting. I thoroughly enjoy it, but at the beginning we as a committee made some decisions regarding the direction we were going to take.
I recognize that a number of members have changed, and so there may be a number of issues that have also changed. But in reference to something Rodger said, this was never meant to be patronizing; it was meant to be a reassurance and it wasn't meant to replace any other piece of legislation. The ombudsman position, as I said earlier, was meant to be the club. I'm giving you my thinking on this, anyway, and we as a committee decided we were going to have two meetings to discuss the bill of rights.
So if it was going to become very heavy-duty legislation, I think two meetings would have been rather short-sighted on the part of our committee, if that's all we were going to deal with. The ombudsman takes care of the heavy-duty side of it, the legislation side of it, but if that's the way the committee wants to go, if you want to have the bill of rights become a piece of legislation, that's in the hands of the committee. The committee can certainly go in that direction if it wants to, but as a committee we did make some promises to veterans. We told them we would be dealing with the health care review, which is very important, especially to the senior veterans.
So I'm just saying, when we make a decision as to which way we want to go as a committee, bear in mind the promises we've already made to veterans, so that we're not letting them down. This was meant to be a reassurance, not patronizing, not a legal document. If you want to make it a legal document, that's up to the committee.