Thank you very much.
I think it's important. Mr. Fast has suggested that there is a perception in the Canadian mind that there's something untoward here, or it's a perception he acknowledges. I would suggest that, by virtue of the time he's taken to make those connections, he's not alleviating the perception. He may be adding to the perception.
I would like to make something very clear so that Canadians watching this would not allow themselves to be drawn into that. For instance, the members opposite are familiar with NSERC or SSHRC. These are federal research granting agencies, with huge budgets. The panels that decide who gets the research money are made up of academics who work within various universities in Canada, and they make decisions all the time about who is going to do what research. I would suggest that we shouldn't hold the court challenges program panels to a higher standard--or perhaps the government has some plans for NSERC and SSHRC and the medical research agencies.
The reality is that in the universe of people--and I think yesterday, when we talked about the CBC, Mr. Fast even referred to the fact that when there is the universe of people who are specifically engaged in this exercise, those are the people we call upon to help us make decisions about these exercises. This is that universe. And to deny that universe the opportunity to make decisions because they've committed their lives to it would be a terrible denial of access for these people.
I just want to make the point again for the purposes of the perception of conflict, which is I guess what is being proposed. The reality is that there are all kinds of agencies where people are big enough to make decisions that they believe are right, and they're not motivated by self-interest. I think we should have greater access to post-secondary education for university students. I've got two kids in college. Surely that doesn't disqualify me from holding that position.