We are a critical voice. We criticize Health Canada. We criticize the pharmaceutical industry for policies that result in harm. That's what our role is. We have been, and continue to be, critical of Health Canada because we feel that their orientation is focused on creating a friendly business environment for the pharmaceutical industry and ensuring pharmaceutical investments in Canada.
We think that approach often subordinates the public interest. I'll tell you, as somebody who has been involved in this area because of a very serious adverse drug reaction, that my impression of Health Canada was that they wanted to convince me, and I think they want to convince the public, that the industry is doing the right thing. They want the public to have confidence in the industry and believe that the industry is able to place the public's interests above the interests of their own investors, and I don't believe.... I think Health Canada does think that they are charged with that responsibility—to balance the public interest with the interests of pharmaceutical investors—and I don't agree with that, so I'm concerned about the direction.
My concern about post-market surveillance right now involves a number of things. One is that there's discussion about applying a cost-recovery model to post-market surveillance, which we are completely opposed to. We also feel that post-market surveillance should not take the place of a rigorous system that is put in place before drugs ever get to the market. That is the most important thing: post-market surveillance is obviously very crucial, but nothing can take the place of a good system to ensure we are getting safe and effective drugs on the market in Canada.