The thing is, we really think you need to review. We'd work from the premise that there needs to be evidence, and we would like there to be an independent review of the current processes, just to get to the bottom of what's happening, mainly because we have been working and discussing with the vice-presidents of the common drug review. We've met with members of the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee to talk about various things to try to understand why their clinical science reaches a different conclusion than our clinical reviews. We have over 660 volunteer researchers, endocrinologists and physicians who worked for about three years for free to evaluate all the science, and they came to a different conclusion on a number of the recommendations the CDR made around drugs.
So we really would encourage you to look at what's happening, because right now the public can't find out. We can't find out how it works.
But if you were to look at a model, we think that the U.K. and Australia have some interesting models you should look at. The U.K.'s model, NICE, which is what the Ontario government is looking at, includes a citizens council that would engage the citizens of Canada in the debate on pharmaceutical policy. That would give you more credibility when decisions are being made on a drug being listed, because right now I think that's the major problem for the common drug review: people don't understand how they've reached the conclusions they've reached.