I'm personally fine with Don's suggestion that we put “Medicago/Mitsubishi Chemical Group”.
The second thing is that, yes, I, too, would like to get on to a vote so that we can get on to more important things.
The third is just on how many sessions and on Rick's comment on having more than two sessions. I just spent a couple of meetings with OGGO, and it was really interesting. It was a real inquisition into the ArriveCAN app, into who contracted with whom, into who subcontracted and into who said what. It was very different from what we are used to at the health committee.
We have a bit of expertise on the health committee. Between those of us who worked in health care and people who have been on this committee for a long time, I think we do a good job of looking at medical questions.
Certainly, we have some big questions coming up in terms of cancer screening in women and the opioid crisis, so although this is a good question and I fully welcome the transparency on what happened in this contract, I think it's probably best left to a committee that is used to doing that kind of work. That would leave us to do what we've done in the past: look into medical issues. There is also importance in doing that, not just in looking at all the government contracts.