Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward. I enjoyed their presentations. I had an opportunity, as well, to meet Mr. Kenneth Maybee yesterday in my office. So thank you very much.
I enjoyed the presentations. I thought some of the principles laid out by DuPont Canada were very good principles. I think probably all of us could agree on that.
Dr. Khatter, you probably listened to the presentation, as well, by Mrs. McKay and those principles she talked about with respect to peer review. How are they going to be managed within certain timeline proposals that you had in your presentation? All of us agree that timelines are an issue. We don't want an open-ended process of assessment, especially if there's no political will from the government. It can become quite dangerous. So we want to make sure that there are certain measurements in place.
When you look at things like sound and peer-reviewed science as a basis for decision-making, transparency, which I think is very important, effective review and update of decisions, and clear communications, I thought these were things that need to be outlined again. How do you sort of measure that within your proposals? Can it be done?