I'd like to follow up with all of you on the idea that this whole matter should be out in the public in an open way for dialogue and discussion and transparency. Unfortunately, now it's not. It's very hard for ordinary Canadians to get information about what stages various drugs are at, what's being taken into consideration, what have been the adverse reactions, what's the best advice. The two incidents I mentioned, Vioxx being one, are worthwhile to look at just in terms of the problems with our whole process and the problem with progressive licensing, because in fact what we're seeing is the possibility of a drug on the market for one use, but it has adverse reactions in the case of another usage. It starts to open the door to the use of our drug approval process, without going through all the hoops again, for getting drugs on the market for other purposes. I think that's probably a shoddy way of doing public protection.
I'd like to know if you have an objection to full transparency about the whole drug approval process. Do you have an objection to an independent board scrutinizing both pre- and post-drug market surveillance?