I wonder how much of that would actually take place given that every time a minister makes a decision, there's going to be somebody who doesn't like the decision popping up and saying, “No, we have science that says that's all wrong; you shouldn't do that.”
This leads to something that Mr. Arnold mentioned in his very first question, which I think is very critical. He talked about science supporting decisions. That seems to me to be backwards in a sense. Shouldn't it be decisions supported by science? The first way, science supporting decisions, is the Fraser Institute model of research. Sorry, but it is simply the wrong way to go at it.
Would you agree, Dr. Reynolds?