Going back to the safety and efficacy of drugs, I notice that your own departmental report shows that in the regulatory reviews of pharmaceuticals, biologics, radiopharmaceuticals, etc., in fact only 18% of them actually did meet the regulatory standards, and I want to know why.
I also note, going back to the Health Council of Canada report, that in terms of safety and efficacy, Health Canada cannot do a good job even if it wanted to; it doesn't have the regulatory mechanism to do anything other than a passive kind of monitoring. That passive monitoring, as we know, according to the Health Council, only reaches about 1% to 10% of adverse drug reactions. It's not a good batting average when you get only 10% of adverse drug reactions being reported because it's voluntary.
So do you see room...or do you believe regulations will help you to do a more active surveillance in terms of efficacy and safety?
Secondly, why do you think there was such a poor performance in terms of the monitoring or the regulating of drugs that came in before post-market surveillance, when you were just looking at new drugs?