I was going to mention the ethics question. It was clarified that things were resolved. As to the lawyers who brought forward hypothetical situations, I think they were very hypothetical. Once Dr. Rouleau explained what they did...anybody could read all kinds of hypotheticals into the situation, but I believe he clarified what they did. A lot of the arguments centred on his affiliation with a specific pharmaceutical company. That is not within the mandate of this committee, and I don't think it was useful to bring it up here. Any of the people they wanted would have been an active member of that sector. If you picked anybody from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, or whatever, you would have people against that because of the company they belong to. I've seen it in competitiveness. It doesn't matter; you'll get your competitors arguing back and forth, and people will pose hypotheticals that maybe this or that could happen.
To judge by the mandate of the governing council and what was explained by Dr. Rouleau, this is a good appointment. I think we should move forward with it.
I think this motion is insulting.