Yes, Mr. Chair.
The way I look at it—and I've been around this business a long time—I think we're all trying to say the same thing. I think we want this study done; I really do. What I'd rather do is see our amendment disappear, and maybe Mr. André and I sit down and talk about wording that satisfies what we are insisting has to happen. This has to somehow link back into the charter review, whether it's a separate study that somehow reports to it or is considered by it. I don't want to leave out the players who have been doing a lot of work on our behalf out there, all those veterans organizations. I do know that the modern vets are very much part of what our concern is today. That's a consideration.
If Mr. André is in agreement, perhaps what we could do is withdraw it. I'd like to see the amendment disappear, but also see that we can cover off what we really believe has to be covered off. Maybe we can look at the wording and add to the wording of his motion words that say “as the study finishes up”. It is going to go beyond our committee. It's going to have to involve DND—there's no question—which is one of my concerns.
Rather than rush it, can we come back and say this would cover it off, this would cover off the study itself, but make sure the charter review is not left out of the piece, that somehow we're off doing this and it's separate from the other? There are a lot of other players out there we are obligated to, and I just want to make sure we're covering it.
If he's comfortable, I'd like us to find a way to make the amendment disappear and come up with wording that addresses the whole issue. If he's comfortable, I would be comfortable.