But in this particular case, certainly there's a great deal of scepticism even in some of the language that's out here. It's a lot smaller than it used to be. In the new language there is “knowledge and understanding” as opposed to what was there before, which was “knowledge and critical understanding”. Some people may look at that as just a small item, but these are words that carry a lot of weight. A critical understanding in and of itself carries a certain degree of independence. I would like to see a three-year review about our museums, about the independence, and about whether this independence is maintained.
I'm sorry if I sound alarmist, but, number one, the committee in a report recommended—all of us recommended—that for the celebrations of 2017 we would set up an arm's-length organization to do this. Already we are now into this exercise, which is also branded as a celebration of 2017, to rename the museum and to produce the artifacts across the country or share them, which I'm fine with. But the branding that you're doing is..... Your department has done it before to an excessive degree. We did an order paper question just a short time ago, and you rebranded what was always the “Government of Canada” so that now most of the releases contain the words “Harper Government” as a rebranding exercise. From June 28, 2011 to March 2, 2013 government departments put out a total of 2,600 releases containing the term “Harper Government”. The number one department was yours by far, by 600 releases. That's a quarter of the total. So, that's your branding exercise. I hope this is not what we're seeing here, which would actually infringe upon the curatorial independence of this organization.