Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was very pleased to hear people say, as I would have expected, that health is paramount. If there were some kind of a trade agreement or protocol—I will ask this of SPP, but I want to raise it here as well—who gets to be the queen of the hill and say trade will override health or health will override trade? Do you have the right to say that if we find this is unacceptable, raising them, which I think I've heard people say, would not be acceptable? Do you get to be the final arbiter, or would somebody else be able to overrule your decision and say they have this other agreement and it's been called a trade irritant? I think that's the phrase I read in the paper. It would seem more like a fetal irritant than a trade irritant. But would you, as Health, which should be primary, have the right to override the decision of someone else who had a trade decision they wanted to put forward? That's the first question.
Secondly, if I were to go to your website—and I will, and I thank you for letting me know that this information around public consultation is on it—have you any idea how much information I would find from Aunt Millie? Aunt Millie is the example I always use about, if you will, next-door neighbours and ordinary citizens. Of all the consultation information that's on it, how much might come from, if you will, Aunt Millie?
Dr. Aucoin, I think those are probably for you.
My third one is for Ms. Watts. When the pesticide folks say to you, it's a trade secret, and they provide a summary of supporting documentation, how do you judge whether indeed it does qualify as a trade secret and that the public should not have access to it?