Thank you.
It really is the valid question that we're dealing with at the moment: how do we effectively apply the money that had previously been earmarked for a facility, as we said, to where it can now provide the greatest value?
I have to start by repeating what the process had been. We had come with a value judgment that going forward with a facility would not give us as large a return on moving the HIV advances forward as other needs. As we're looking it at right now, the other needs really range from gaps in scientific information that's necessary to develop a new vaccine to gaps in moving the vaccine forward through the clinical process, not only in clinical trial facilities accessible in Canada but also through clinical processes in countries where we actually need to have an effect, for instance, in western Africa—maybe there'll be a question on why Africa—to the point of providing some assurance that the vaccines can be delivered well in the target areas. Those target areas could be in Canada or outside Canada.
It's a very large project. Many tens of hundreds of millions of dollars are spent globally to move the HIV agenda forward. We, Canada, jointly with the Gates Foundation, need to pick and choose where we can have the greatest effect for our money.
As a final quick point, we were not acting alone on this. We are in a partnership with the Gates Foundation. Even though the Gates Foundation puts in less money than we do, their influence and reach into the global HIV vaccine advancement community is phenomenal.