Thanks, Mr. Chair.
To pick up on some points that Mr. Villemure has outlined, if the Canada-China committee is taking a lead, would it not make sense for us to let them complete the process. We could write to them to say, “Hey, we're here at your disposal to look at whatever issues you need to look at in the greater context of things.” We could then have them send a reference to us if they need it.
I really think that we can't just go with one-offs on the same issue and on different tangents to create different issues. We need to let the Canada-China committee take the lead on this issue, and if they feel that they need to give the ethics committee a reference on this issue, then let's follow their leadership and have them do it. It doesn't make sense for us to be parallel in the work that they're doing at the same time.
Again, Mr. Chair, I propose that we write to them and say that we're interested, and if they feel that there is this branch of information they think we should be analyzing, we're more than happy to receive that. If we do receive a request from them, then we'd be more than happy to follow it. I think we're being a bit too pre-emptory here with respect to this. We should let the Canada-China committee lead this issue and should let them give us a reference if they choose to do so.
I really appreciate the issues that Mr. Villemure has outlined, but we should be more judicious in terms of what we bring into our committee, running parallel studies, etc.