I'll repeat the question, but I'll try to be a bit faster.
In your opening statements, you made some comments about glyphosate. I was talking about how Health Canada dealt with a similar controversial issue before, with safety code 6, dealing with wireless radiation. There was a lot of controversy over that. Ultimately what came out as a recommendation was for Health Canada to pursue a fully independent study of it. They got the Royal Society of Canada to weigh in on it. They did a full literature review and independent study apart from Health Canada.
When it comes to glyphosate—and I'm someone who normally has a lot of trust in our public institutions—Health Canada made a very public statement that they followed a “transparent and rigorous science-based regulatory process” when looking at it. We know that the manufacturer has provided a lot of documentation. At the same time, when we're talking about Canadian public trust and perception, and they are bombarded with competing views on this subject, do we ultimately need Health Canada to maybe employ the services of the Royal Society of Canada to look at this? What steps will we need in order to put this debate to bed, so to speak?
Dr. Vandelac, did you hear my question?
All right. Mr. Rehn, perhaps you're able to offer some comments on that. You've heard the question twice now.