Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rabinovitch, I do appreciate everything you've said, but I want to point out that you said you thought the new mandate was a bit restrictive. The Winnipeg Free Press said:
The previous title was vague, as was the museum's mission, which seemed to include multiple trajectories and themes, everything from postal history to natural science and exhibits on butterflies.
Obviously, there's always going to be a lot of disagreement on what mandate is the right mandate and what mandate is the wrong mandate. I guess that's always open to interpretation.
Mr. McAvity, I'm going to ask you this, because you seem to have the most experience of anyone on the panel when it comes to museums. Paragraph 9(1)(f) of the bill says:
undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology, and communicate the results of that research.
That sounds to me as though research will obviously continue.
Paragraph 9(1)(e) says:
organize, sponsor, arrange for or participate in travelling exhibitions, in Canada and internationally, of museum material in its collection and from other sources.
You have the most experience of anybody on the panel. In your opinion, is the mandate too reduced? Do you think we won't be able to continue with our international desire to promote Canada and to learn more about other cultures? Is the mandate too narrow? Are we eliminating research with this new act?