First of all, the study is 14 years old, I'm sad to say. There has really been an explosion of pharmaceuticals since that time. I think it's safe to say—I'm not a medical person—that some of those work and some don't work, and so one has to be a little bit careful. In the years since that time, I would argue that the numbers—which are set out in one of the documents I presented to you as a model of what to follow—indicate in effect that 13 or 14 countries have followed a universal pharmacare program, which means that it has to have worked.
Why do I say that? Because it is accepted by the governments and by the public both on a cost basis and within a values structure.
The two outliers, strangely in my judgment of history, are Canada and the United States. What are the grounds for that? There don't seem to be sufficient grounds, at least there are none that I've seen. I've tried to keep up to date on the studies. I'm not as current on them as I was. There just seems to be a reluctance in terms of either federal-provincial co-operation or federal leadership.
I think the evidence, with some little discrepancies here and there, which are important to consider, overwhelmingly indicates that a single pharmacare plan complements our program. To me, it fits with our values, and it fits with the evidence that is there. Fourteen years ago, we didn't have nearly the numbers we have today.