I should explain, Mr. Chairman, that changes don't happen simply overnight. They evolve in the operation of an institution over a period of time. Why a mandate, and a mandate expression in law, is so important is that it acts as the direct guideline to the administrators of the institution as to what they're supposed to do.
I wish I could count on multiple fingers the number of times that I and my colleagues over 11 years would go back to read the mandate paragraph in the 1990 bill, and how many times we would cite it to each other as we decided on the internal allocation of money for positions in one area or positions in another area.
This is a long way of saying that the wording of Bill C-49 will have a very direct impact on how the senior managers see their authority, their priorities, and their role. It's important that it's not just words, but that it is the law stating what you're supposed to do.
Unlike my colleague, Mr. McAvity, having worked in these large institutions and having had to justify every penny to the Auditor General when they come through for their special investigations every five years, you have to be able to point to the law to explain what you're doing and why. As well, the Treasury Board reviews your plans, and the Department of Heritage reviews your plans each year. You have to be able to justify: where does the law say that this is your mandate, that this is your objective?
So the way these words are chosen—and this is for all members of the committee—is really important. It's not window dressing. “Critical understanding” is an academic expression meaning the ability to criticize, the ability to engage with knowledge and challenge it.