Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Clark hit it right on the head when he talked about this legislation being a facilitating legislation. That's because the previous government and this current one decided not to actually put the funds into foreign aid, be it the 0.7% GDP or actually having a strategy to do so. That's why their outreach was there to the generics and the brand name companies, to actually see if they wanted to play a role.
I agree that nobody's hands are clean on this. The fact of the matter is that if a brand name company wanted to take a 0.2% profit--or 1%, or 2%, or 3%, or 4%--on their drugs being shipped out somewhere else, they could do so. We wouldn't even need the legislation.
I guess one thing I am concerned about, Mr. Clark, is somewhat of a legitimate sticking point, I think. Isn't the two-year time limit a little bit restrictive in terms of going through the process and getting an actual application through? What do you do about the fact that people will be living with HIV and AIDS, on some of the drugs we can provide, much longer than the two years on the prescriptions they have? Isn't that kind of a problem with the whole issue? Or do you see it as not a problem? I think it really is, from a health and human aspect--there are many Canadians who take HIV and AIDS medication longer than two years and benefit from it very strongly--and also a production aspect.