Thank you very much. We'll do whatever we can at the national level to push this same issue and access those medications.
I want to quickly change gears and ask a bit of an academic question to Mr. Culbert. He mentioned that our approach from a public health perspective with respect to this crisis was first to try to suggest things to people, to educate the public. We were left coercive actions only as a last resort. I think the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Ministry of Health have been criticized as being maybe too slow in doing this.
However—and I would throw this back at the public health community and public health academia—I would suggest that this approach only reflects the prevailing attitudes of public health and public health academia. Having myself gone through a bit of public health university and also having been involved in writing public health legislation, I think there's been a tremendous swing in the pendulum, away from what used to be a heavy emphasis on coercive action to control the spread of infectious disease while giving scant attention to impeding individual liberties. Over the years, because of a lack of infectious disease, we've become a lot more concerned about doing everything possible not to infringe on individual liberties, and we've been very reluctant to use any sort of coercive action to control the spread of infectious disease. This is public health academia. Although our government was criticized for it, it is the prevailing attitude in public health academia and public health circles in the western world.
I'm throwing it out to you that this was perhaps a mistake on the part of the public health community.