I really appreciate the question, Marcus. I would say there is an opportunity for this bill to become law by virtue of the timing of it, because I won this arcane lottery, as far as it goes.
Matt Jeneroux, by the way, knows more than anyone about the ability to get a private member's bill passed. I was happy to help with that effort. I'm hoping I get a little help in return.
On the question of what to do as a committee, I think it's, very simply, to get the review question out of the way. Delete that section, as Don said. I think that's a pretty fair way forward. It's causing consternation across the aisle. Just get rid of it, because that's not the principle focus of this thing. You can make it an independent review and away you go, but otherwise, bracket that off, delete it, get rid of it and let's focus on the nuts and bolts of it.
Otherwise, yes, bring in experts. I sent Sean a list of them. Bring in experts. They will disagree with some portions. They'll have better language for other sections, but go through the obligations in the plan, and if anything's missing, add it. If particular language is a problem, change it. Make sure that there's a strong, fulsome obligation on the government of what ought to be in that plan when they table it in Parliament every three to five years. You can have the debate about three to five years, as far as it goes.
I think that's where the focus of the conversation should be. We're putting in place a framework for not just this government but all future governments. What ought to be in it to make sure that you don't have those conversations that you all had with PHAC and others in the wake of the pandemic, and that we're having them before the next pandemic?
What are the answers to core questions around preparedness? What are core answers to questions around prevention, and how do we make sure these questions are being answered in a very proactive way?