Right. The initial challenge in this whole strategy was trying to figure out who should be at the table. The whole notion of having a prescription monitoring program—which gets to your other point about how dispensing and the whole supply chain is monitored and who is intervening at which point, whether it be for physicians who are perhaps prescribing it in a manner inconsistent with others to allow for a flag to be raised for the college to go in and ask why they are prescribing in this manner, to monitoring the actual transaction of the prescriptions, and on from there so to speak—is captured under monitoring and surveillance.
I'll go back to the point of not necessarily having the right data. Monitoring is about the prescription monitoring programs and the variability among the jurisdictions. Surveillance is about the broad prevalence data and some of the harm data that I was referring to earlier, which we frankly are still lacking in many of the jurisdictions.
The other point I would make, and then perhaps Paula can jump in, is that the pharmacies and dispensaries I think are well covered off. In fact, we had the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities there. Again, we had them all at the table and they all indicated that this is something they want to engage in and be a part of.
In terms of Health Canada's role, I think our responsibility was to create a context in which the government could see where its actions should be focused. I think First Do No Harm gives that concentration of activities. As you pointed out, Health Canada is listed in a number of them along with other jurisdictions.
The good news for me is that we saw that it has now been included in the Speech from the Throne, which we thought was a significant accomplishment.