Thank you. I appreciate that.
Ultimately, when we look at that, one of the things we've heard around the table today is how bureaucracy consumes a lot of that funding. It eats it up. By creating a capstone, the concern will be how much of the federal funding is actually going into that bureaucracy and not to the boots on the ground, as I like to say, and the researchers. That's a big concern in getting that out there.
Ms. Laframboise, your comments were excellent when you talked about reporting, feedback and public availability of plans, and you included community involvement in academia. In my previous life, when I did my undergraduate degree, I had to do research, and I did it. When I did my graduate degree, I had to do a research project. When I did my fellowship, I had to do a research project. I've gone through that route. The one thing it taught me is that I wasn't cut out to be a researcher and that I was going to go into clinical practice versus research practice.
As you move through those steps and you're making those presentations to these organizations and to the tri-agency committee to make those decisions, especially from a health care point of view, to your point, Ms. Laframboise, the reality is that it's based on scientific merit. That's the big challenge we have. It's the accountability for the scientific merit that determines what the research will be.
For example, $111,000 was given to a study at the University of British Columbia. The title is “Narco-Animalia: Human-Animal relations in Mexico’s Narco-Culture”. If we're talking about scientific merit—somebody gave that money to this study—where is the scientific merit?
Do you have any thoughts on that?