I don't know what their process is for reviewing the evidence and the rigour that they apply. I can tell you, though, that I am extremely comfortable with the process that the common drug review applies. It is very similar to the process that British Columbia has applied and continues to apply for the new indications for old drugs, and it's one that meets the standards internationally that are applied by the Cochrane Collaboration.
It's hard for me to know why there are differences that exist when I don't have a good understanding of the details of how those countries go about doing their process. If they did things in the same way as we used to do them before we undertook critical appraisal, I can understand that they would come to different conclusions.