Thank you very much, Chair.
There are a couple of things to point out. I think that if you look at the wording of the article, as we've talked about many times before, you'll see that the wording was very clear: knowledge of the legislation was there, or, more to the point, what wouldn't be in the bill was there. That's pretty specific evidence demonstrating that there was prior knowledge of the legislation.
I understand what Mr. Chan is saying, but I also would just point out to him to reread the article. I think it becomes very clear what is there.
Also, we didn't get here by just dreaming this up. The Minister of Justice pointed us in this direction in her testimony. We are here based on the evidence she gave and on her direction being that her ministry.... She cleared it up that her office wasn't involved—questioned her staff, had procedures in place—so we're very confident that her department was not the source of the leak. Going by her direction and her advice, this is how we got here.
Obviously, the Minister of Health is the next step in this whole process. If you're saying there's no evidence, again I point back to the article, and I point back to the Minister of Justice pointing us in the direction and urging us to continue. I hope my friends on the other side do have another look at this. We want to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully, they do too, other than just saying that we've done our due diligence, we've listened to one witness, and we're good to go.
I think there's more to be done here. It would be a shame to draw the line and close this here because, as I said before, you're rewarding bad behaviour. How would this stop going forward? Why would it stop? There is no consequence.