I think there are many lessons learned in terms of science and science advice. I would say that on the positive side, science did inform the decisions. Scientists stepped up to the plate. You know they were part of many expert committees. At the same time, there were too many expert committees. It's unsustainable. It might be okay if the emergency lasts for a few months, but if it lasts for a few years, it's another story. We need to have a better way of doing this.
If we look at other countries, we see that they have better frameworks for the provision of science advice to government in cases of emergencies. I would suggest that we look at embedding the role of the chief science advisor and their responsibility in emergency preparedness and in the connectivity with the rest of the government.
One other thing I will say is that over the past few years, we have put science advisers in several departments. We're very pleased that the Department of Public Safety has come to the conclusion that having a science adviser in its department will be helpful to it. I think that's a very good development.