Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Nate, again, thank you for being here and presenting to us. It is appreciated.
Further to what Don has talked about, when I look at the second part of it.... We'll go to that second part as opposed to the first part. I think that's what Canadians want.
Number one is that, as I look at this, I see that you're pointing out things that I believe are already in place. That's part of why I brought up what I did in my first line of questioning. They are already in place. You are identifying that and making it such that, although the assumptions of Canadians are that PHAC would provide that information to the government, it appears that some of it may not have been provided. This basically puts that in place to say that it has to be done. It has to be done in this kind of time frame with that preparedness plan. That part, I think, is a good thing.
As we move forward, obviously, there are parts of it.... For example, if we were to look at paragraphs 4(2)(f) and 4(2)(g), basically what they indicate is that we need to be on top of things. Perhaps what this will do is create the re-existence of GPHIN, which was the global public health intelligence network that was in place until 2019 and was then shut down. One of the things that we found out during COVID, when we first saw this on our table in 2020, was that this wasn't in place to monitor these aspects. These are things that I think are of value in there.
I'm just wondering about your thoughts along those lines.
Did you have any discussions with any particular people in dealing with, for example, the GPHIN, as you approached the legislation?