I could comment briefly on this, although I think the CDR representatives will elaborate in more detail from their vantage point.
I think it's fair to say that if you look at the website where CDR information is posted, the website of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health, you will see there is a lot of information posted there documenting the progress and timelines and the conformity with time targets for review of drugs that CDR has been asked to review. And there are also quite good explanations of the reasons for decision when the CEDAC has provided its advice about whether or not a drug should be listed.
Now, I think there are always cases that can and should be made about whether or not the level of transparency corresponds with contemporary standards, and let's face it, those standards have changed a lot in recent times. But I think at this point, many of us would feel that CADTH and the CDR should be commended for the level of transparency surrounding their management of the CDR program. That's not to say they don't wish to do moreāand you can ask them about their plans when their witnesses appear later on. But at the moment, if you want to know why a decision has been taken about a particular drug reviewed through the CDR process, you can get quite a good sense of what factors went into their recommendation just by consulting the CADTH and CDR website.