I have two things. First, is there anything you want to answer respecting the previous panel's concerns? I'm sure you picked them up: the clearance piece, around colleagues sharing samples, and those kinds of things. Do you feel you would like to offer either a “what a great idea” or “yes, but” kind of answer to what the previous panel said?
My second question is this. We know that sometimes with advisory committees on science-based topics, governments are criticized on the grounds that as soon as the panel is announced, people know what the answer is going to be. Do you have any thoughts about how you'd put it in place and whether the Science Advisory Board of Health Canada could be involved in picking a panel of the best possible people to give advice on something as important as this?
The last question comes from Derek Lee. It seems that the back-end check on regulations is missing in this bill, in terms of their coming back to committee or back to Parliament. In all of these, on every single bill that has to do with regulations and science, we will be putting in an amendment from Derek Lee asking us to.... You can't take the front end and the back end out of parliamentary oversight.