First of all, just to reassure Mr. Petit, who was not here for the testimony we heard earlier this week, there are really two components to this bill. The first is the national portrait we were discussing with Mr. Smith, that allows us to cooperate with agencies—for example, in Quebec—who are also committed to sustainable development. Then there is the federal component—that is, the implications of the policies set by federal agencies and departments in this area. So, there is a distinction between the responsibilities of federal institutions and the national portrait, where we are cooperating with the provinces.
I'm fascinated by the machinery of government part, obviously, and I can see that what we're struggling for is some kind of analogy.
There are two points.
First of all, Mr. Mitchell says that he would be more comforted if this were not a private member's bill, if it were a government bill. Would it bother him as much if the government decided that this was a useful initiative and lent its support? Would that have less legitimacy if they decided, well, Parliament occasionally does these things, and that it fit with their intentions to provide greater accountability and to respond to a problem with sustainable development plans?