I've read the testimony and I work in this area, so I talk to a lot of people in this area. I think partly the question that you're driving at has to do with this broad tension that comes about through Canada's political environment, this federalism that essentially gives the role of making drugs available to Canadians to the provinces. As a result, you have this provincial-federal dynamic that one has to deal with, and let me be clear that this is nowhere near my forte. I have no particular strengths in this area, and in fact the testimony I read that was interesting was from Roy Romanow, basically saying that you have to practise the darker arts of federalism in order to make these things happen.
I think what it boils down to is essentially two options. Typically, Canada has achieved national programs by virtue of the federal government following the provincial governments' lead, and that seems to be an approach that Canada has been comfortable with over the years. As a result, you have one set of advisers saying to you that the way to move forward is to allow the provinces to provide universal access under their own steam, and then you have another set basically saying that this approach will result in a bunch of differences—not only differences in access, but differences in skill levels across the country, differences in prices, and that you'd be better off going for what you might describe as a big bang approach and trying to do it from the federal level down.
I can see a way to do it with the big bang approach because that's what I've grown up with, that's what I've lived with, and that's what I can understand. The dark arts of federal politics and the provincial-federal split that you have to practise here in Canada are not things I'm expert in, and I'm unable therefore to tell you which way to go.