Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the interesting things about the bill....The department is very critical of it. Setting up the standards, it could be a runaway success. I guess a runaway success would be that we'd have a lot of different drugs that then would be exported, treating people and actually saving lives. It's kind of an interesting analysis of it. But they also painted the picture that Apotex in Rwanda was a success story.
You know, getting the drugs to those individuals, yes, that is a success. But the process wasn't. And they painted the picture that CAMR worked very efficiently in that, but CAMR requires you to do some work before you actually do your paperwork with it. Can you maybe go through that experience?
What I find kind of incredible about the department's attitude in this is that.... I asked them during a briefing that if they don't think Bill C-393 is a good bill, could they offer suggestions on how to improve it, and not one of the departments could offer one suggestion on that. I find that incredible, because if we don't change it, it's just not going to get used at all.
The hoops that were jumped through to get the Apotex Rwanda thing done.... Back in 2003, when we started this, there were warnings that it wouldn't work. But at the same time, when we had the final piece, we all said we'll put down our swords, stop fighting over it and try to make it work. Now that one success story is being used against fixing the system.
Can you provide some insight into the timelines of what happened in Rwanda?