That's my view.
Under trade agreements, Canada is required to put into place measures to protect data, essentially, which might capture, or some would argue does capture, safety and effectiveness data around a drug. But there are two exceptions to that commitment. One is where it's necessary to protect the public, so a public interest exception, and I would make the argument that it is absolutely the case that we have to have this information. Some would contest that. So what I tried to do is to base it on the other exception, where a government has put into place measures to protect that data against unfair commercial uses.
What companies are most worried about when you talk about transparency is that you're going to give a free ride to their competitors, especially generic companies. Canada has put into place through regulations under the Food and Drugs Act periods of data exclusivity, quite apart from patents and other forms of market protection that might be available to first-mover companies. There's a period of eight years in which the Minister of Health cannot issue a notice of compliance to a competitor in respect of the same drug under the Food and Drugs Act, when you're talking about an innovative drug. Because we've done that, because we've protected data against unfair commercial uses, it's my position that it's open to the government, completely consistent with our trade obligations, to make this information more transparent.