The first thing I'd like is just a clarification from Dr. Morgan about his idea of progressive licence, because I think mine was different. I guess I thought if we were calling for a progressive licence, it meant that what is now a final licence would only be temporary until it had real world experience. So any drug would be on some sort of real world probation.
I didn't see the progressive licence as being something that hurried things up. I thought it was a matter that we would wait and see what happened out in the real world before you get your final papers.
Maybe what I will do is ask the three questions and then you can take whatever time is left.
On the $21 billion, 2% piece--I guess dreaming in Technicolor--what do you think we could do with $500 million if we were going to invest that in addition to what is actually in the process now?
I guess certainly Dr. Laupacis' real world safety network would obviously be a dream come true of part of this, and I want to know whether you see this as part of a separate health protection agency, like the FDA, where it's very clear that its responsibility is for quality and effectiveness, not this murky thing we have right now at Health Canada. Then this network would be like what we now have with the public health network, where all the chief public health officers come together to plan and plot and deal with the safety of the public health.
I guess the third little question was, in B.C.'s PharmaNet right now--in terms of how far behind we are on electronic health records--does the fact that you've got at least the drugs there mean the pharmacists are able to call everybody on Prepulsid and tell them to go and see their doctors if there is a recall?
Those were my three little....