I appreciate that. As I say, I emphasize that when we're back in September, this process will continue. We're not trying to rush anybody on anything.
Mr. O'Neill commented on the impact on the museum. I know that it's not the intent of the sponsor of the bill to change what is the legal system of the land. I agree with you that perhaps that wording should be looked at carefully, because this would in no way supersede the authority or the independence that the museum system has.
I think we might want to seek advice through the committee process, and perhaps Gary may want to follow through as well, on how we can make sure it dovetails so that we're not interfering, including in budget matters. I don't think that was the intent at all. There is also the time factor. I think that's an important point we probably would never have thought about.
There is something I'm wondering about, though, as a concept. Peter won't be surprised that we philosophically disagree. That's why we have different parties. But we're in the real world, and the fact is that there is a value in medals, whether it's distasteful or not. They are being sold, and families sometimes like to have the right to do what they want.
I know that you can't get into details of the bill, but do you sense that it's a right kind of initiative to put out there, that it gives people a chance to reflect on the importance of medals and memorabilia and perhaps helps the educational process? Could you give just us some general comments, please?