I appreciate it, Adam.
One, on the independent side of the equation, I would leave it as I answered.
On the second piece, though—and I think Don correctly assessed this—there are two core parts to this. I would have said that the review is ancillary even to the pandemic prevention and preparedness plan and the obligation to table that in Parliament. That's the architecture that we're really talking about here. There are details in what should or shouldn't be in the plan. There are amendments, I have no doubt, that ought to be made to add things, to remove things and to adjust language. That's, I think, the core focus.
On the review side, delete it if it's a problem. That was ancillary to the core focus here. If Matt has a problem with it or if others.... Don obviously has articulated a sensible challenge with it. Remove it, or in your wisdom, make it a stronger review.
I think that can very easily be dealt with. Let's focus on the nuts and bolts of this, which is the obligation to table a plan and the obligation to appoint a coordinator who is going to be responsible for the plan, and then really let's make sure the language is right for what ought to be in the plan.