Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Benefiting from Dr. Fox's presence again, on the Preston principle that we don't want you to disappear, I'll start my questions with you, Dr. Fox, and then move on to our Samara rep.
You were talking a bit about the backbench business committee in deciding which e-petitions that receive 100,000 would go forward to debate and you suggested that the process by which the petition system was created has created problems for the committee, so that's been very useful.
I wanted to delve into one particular aspect, and I'm not sure if it's played a role in determining whether any 100,000-signature petitions have gone to debate or not. It's the question of duplication of petitions, which is, a petition comes in and it's about the agri-business and saving seed, and another petition in roughly the same time period comes forward and is about agri-business, saving seed, and its connection to the specific economic strategies of GMO corporations. They're not exactly the same and you can imagine, as well, that although they overlap, the premises of one, the preambular premises, might be different, and the plea for relief might also be different.
Is there any experience yet with determining what degree of duplication is too much and when one has to sit in the queue until another has gone forward? Is there any kind of experience with that? My immediate concern is this. I would prefer to let a thousand flowers bloom and allow petitioners to frame in their own language what an issue is about and would have no particular problem with petitions going forward on the same topic, but I'm concerned that there's a fair bit of emphasis in other petition systems on duplication. Is there any experience with that?