It is a reality now, as you've mentioned, that individuals on social assistance do have coverage in most provinces and it's generally pretty good coverage. Certainly in the case where seniors are covered, which is also the case in the majority of provinces and territories, there is some degree of income testing, but for reasons you can all imagine it's not that easy from a political standpoint to introduce a really progressive kind of regime where the beneficiaries are actually paying some portion of the cost in accordance with their income. So even though the co-pays and deductibles may vary a little bit with income, probably in an ideal world those regimes could be a little bit stronger.
I mentioned catastrophic coverage. We have looked in the past at different approaches for those individuals who do not have good coverage on an ongoing basis and where their costs relative to either their own net or their own family income are relatively high, and we have looked at different models of providing catastrophic coverage based on the proportion of drug costs as a percentage of income, and the cost will vary widely. At that time, and this was now a number of years ago, catastrophic drug coverage to close all of the current gaps in Canada, depending on which model you choose, could have varied from a couple of hundred million dollars a year to many billions. It's entirely dependent on the model you choose and the degree of progressivity in the financing arrangement.