Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, for this excellent question. Yes, I think we can build on some of the best practices that we have been looking at in other jurisdictions.
I would say there are two—perhaps more, but at least two—main criteria we can look at and should include in the legislation. The first one is the criterion of independence. How do we define that? I alluded to that in our introductory remarks. One way to do it is to make sure that the person holding the mandate does not have any interests that could affect his or her ability to fulfill the mandate. When we start looking at that, it reduces the number of possible candidates quite quickly, to be frank, but then we come down to really making sure the person would be independent and would make recommendations addressed to all political parties with a view to putting science first.
We made a recommendation for a suggested amendment with regard to the second criterion. It's based on what we've seen in other jurisdictions. We list some of the disciplines that should be part of the committee. Of course, the first one that comes to mind is climate change science. We have also seen that it's quite interesting to make sure that we have people who are able to assess the different impacts, in terms of vulnerable populations and regions, that climate change has and will continue to have. There's also public policy, for instance, and social science as well, but mostly, of course, it's with climate science in mind.
I hope that answers your question.