Thank you, Mr. McAvity.
I will not ask you to tell me what you are the most pleased about. Is it this commitment to Canada-wide dissemination or the destruction of what is already in place to make improvements? I am not asking you to respond to the question, as I already have my answer.
It's clear that the museum community is excited about this idea, and its members have said so many times in the House. People are very happy about that potential roll-out and project variation. I see that as a positive aspect. As Mr. Rabinovitch said, there was no need to break something to add another dimension that deserves full development—or at least an addition and not a replacement.
I really liked the metaphor Mr. Holyoak used. We should not be against the use of the term pickup, as that's really a nice image. This is really a wonderful thing people use and visit. It is well made, it is moving and can perfectly represent the Canadian reality, as it has not changed that much. And if it has changed, we can modernize the metaphor. So your analogy is excellent. In addition, you referred to something very true in your life, and also very Canadian. So it was perfectly relevant to point that out.
Given your area of expertise, do you think it is a shame the term “critical understanding” is being removed from the legislation?
These words have actually been taken out. To me, this removal is so important, considering all the doubts that we have about the approach of the government toward scientists and other questioning units in our society.