I think that's actually the critical point. You could go to see a specialist and have the initial diagnosis, but it's the follow-up that matters.
Here's where I think CIHR can help; our researchers would love to be called upon to talk about the evidence around a policy. You would just need to call me, and we could put a rapid response system in place. These really are what Cindy calls the content experts. I don't think we could expect you to know what people have spent their lifetimes researching.
I think drafting the policy early is important, but what happens when that policy is in place? We try to look at the unintended impact of, let's say, the marijuana policy, or smoking. We'll try to learn from smoking. Minors can't buy cigarettes. Well, we learned that a 17-year-old girl has a much easier time getting a cigarette than a 17-year-old boy. Why? There are lots of reasons, and most of them have to do with gender. Did anyone perceive the unintended consequences?
What are we doing to monitor the impact of a policy? Are we evaluating? There was a fitness tax credit. If your children did hockey, basketball, horse riding, sailing, and all kinds of male sports, you could get a tax credit. It didn't say dance, hip hop, or running. Did more parents apply for the tax credit for their sons than their daughters? You'll only know that if you do the analysis two years after the policy was implemented. To me, that's the real evaluation that we want.