We are convinced that a mandatory system is necessary, because there is the issue of the ability to respond to these shortages as well as the required response time. We are seeing that right now. Findings have been made. At the end of the day, the Sandoz case brings to light all the problems, all the causes and all the consequences. It is an unfortunate situation, but it still gives us an opportunity to learn and respond.
These considerations must be recognized. A mandatory system is needed, because every minute counts. Sandoz was notified in November, and the warning was issued in February. I am not trying to single out Sandoz, but I want it to serve as an example for us, just as health professionals would learn from a patient's case.
There was a three-month window when they could have responded. The lack of a mandatory requirement made us more vulnerable and put us at the mercy of others. Companies, even after they are given the go-ahead for production, take months to respond and adjust their production. That is key.
I have also seen that, on the American side, the FDA has managed not quite to eliminate all the shortages, but to reduce them dramatically. We are seeing that in 2010, a total of 38 shortages out of 178 were avoided. In 2011, some 195 shortages out of 250 were avoided. That is a meaningful improvement. In 2012, from January 1 to February 9, there were 18. That is significant.
We have to use these methods. We have a social responsibility toward Canadians to take all measures necessary. Various levels come into play. Certainly, there is the monitoring component and the obligation to report problems as soon as they are identified.
Sometimes, certain companies make choices. We can respect those choices, but they must be announced immediately. When you are dealing with situations that affect production increases—as in the case of Sandoz—warning must be given, and the manufacturer must have an obligation to alert authorities immediately.