I'm going to have to go back into the archives to find out more about it. My understanding is that you're correct, the Minister of Defence at the time took it upon himself to decide he was going to call that room the War Room. That was never sanctioned in any way, though it does have that plaque on it.
I think one of the difficulties we run into is that there isn't a clear process for how these things get done. I think one of the problems we're facing is that the architectural history of the building is not well understood. The entire building is dedicated to veterans, not just those who died, but those who served and who served recently.
I hear what members are saying, and clearly the meetings with these very brave men and women have had a great emotional impact.
I appreciate that you want to honour veterans by having a room dedicated specifically to them. However, as the chair was saying, the problem is that no one room is reserved for the sole use of one single committee. This request came out of the blue. The fact is that the procedure committee, the Board of Internal Economy and other committees meet in this room.
On listening to you, I can understand why veterans are so at ease speaking with you. It has nothing to do with the physical space. It has everything to do with the fact that you listen to them.
I understand your wish to have a room that would be more reflective of their experience. I guess the difficulty I have is the same as the Speaker has described, which is that since no rooms are really dedicated to one committee, it seems to me to be a bit misdirected, if you will, in terms of a way of honouring the veterans.
I suspect the veterans who come before you feel they are being listened to and have found a safe place—the land, if you will—because of your openness to them. I think the surroundings are the surroundings, but I don't think that's the key element.