Thank you, Mr. McTeague.
I'm going to take the last spot here, Dr. Carty.
Dr. Carty, I was at the synchrotron on Saturday at the University of Saskatchewan. In your remarks you mention an innovation and research system and you talk about scientific excellence and funding and then you talk about science advice as the two that need to complement each other. I think that's absolutely correct.
One of the things that hasn't come out today is the fact that when I was out there in Saskatoon—and I don't want to speak for them—they seemed overjoyed with what we're moving forward with in terms of an S and T strategy, first of all last spring, but secondly, in terms of the budget, in terms of concrete things that the government is actually doing. Investing more in the synchrotron, more funding for indirect costs of research, more funding for the three granting councils—all things you've supported over the years—strengthening the ability of Canadian universities to attract and retain top science leaders with $21 million over two years to establish up to 20 Canada global excellence research chairs. These are issues we can point to that are very specific and concrete, which I certainly assume you would support in an advisory position. I think that needs to be emphasized.
When you emphasize the advice and you emphasize the funding, it's a very key question. One of the things that strike me is partly from our own private discussions. You mention it in your talk about being inadequately funded from the start. My impression from our conversations was that you were frustrated right from the start with a lack of direct access to former Prime Minister Paul Martin. You make comments about the current government, and I take your point, but you seem to be very frustrated at your lack of access to former Prime Minister Paul Martin and the fact that you were not solicited for advice.
Is that impression of your frustration correct or not?