Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your indulgence, since I had to slip out of the room.
I want to try to get back to the essential ingredients of any kind of proper post-market surveillance system. One we've talked about is progressive licensing, as long as it doesn't reduce or move away from any attempt to follow a precautionary principle at the front end. I just want to check that this is what you're saying, and what it means, when the ADM comes to our committee and says they want to implement a lifestyle approach to regulating health products that shifts the focus from a pre-market review to that one that continuously assesses a product's risks and benefits. Is that not a problem?
Secondly, related to that, I know we have to talk about risks and benefits and that there are some drugs that come on the market that have some safety problems but it might be better than dying, etc. Don't we have now an “exceptional circumstances” drug release program to do just that? Why do we need to be less stringent at the front end and put more Canadians at risk in order to accomplish something that's already on the books now?
That's the first question. I'll try to fit in some more if there's time.