I don't think you did, sir.
I'd just like to support what Madame Kenny said. Is this a governmental function or is this a function that government can lead? I would suggest that it may be a function that government can lead.
When you think about Confederation itself, it's the start line for Canadian government as we know it today. It's not the whole story, but it's the zero hour, the start line for who we are now. For our government, it's who we are now.
Is it the government's function to run that one department within government, or would they be the ones to bring together the stakeholders in an independent body that could make this an expression of how Canadians feel about Confederation, free of the day-to-day friction of politics in Ottawa and free of interdepartmental friction? We want to raise the committee's work above that, above the fray.
At 3,000 feet, when you're a pilot, the air becomes calm. You're out of the ground effect of air turbulence. You want a committee or that independent body to be able to work above 3,000 feet, where the air is calmer.
Certainly academics would be stakeholders. As for a private partner, there is economic benefit to be gained from this arrangement, but there's also an enormous contribution that the private partner can contribute in terms of sponsorship, and of course, it's the role that the private partner played in Confederation, in what led up to Confederation, in the raison d'ĂȘtre of Confederation.
The official languages community would certainly have a role, but there are other players within the public partner that Madame Kenny mentioned, first nations certainly being very important.
I see this being a committee that is not governmental in nature, and I think that's why it should probably be an independent not-for-profit organization.