Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Lewis, I want to explore that concept of intimidation. We heard from witnesses just the other day, representing the Government of Canada and key government departments, that we're somewhat bankrupt to be able to explain why this legislative process, the compliance with the TRIPS waivers, is not leading to a better access to medicines regime on behalf of Canadian companies, generic producers. I'm just wondering whether there's some element of intimidation not just of the importing countries, the recipient countries, but as well of Canadian companies who might be involved in this.
You mentioned that India is punching above its weight currently. It has the regulatory environment to be able to produce this, but it also seems to me that it has the business case to offer. It has cheap labour, its production costs are much lower, and so it is now the warehouse of antiretrovirals.
I would like your opinion as to whether Canada, if we were to alter our business case—It seems to me that you are of the opinion that our legislation is pretty good; that notwithstanding the naming of specific countries of import, the legislation is pretty sound. What's happening here in Canada is that the business case is not all that strong for the generic producers to become involved in this.
I'm wondering whether there's a better or stronger role for CIDA to participate in this sort of activity, in much the same way as they provide official development assistance for other types of services, whether it be remote sensing of environments or provision of clean water supplies. CIDA goes out, contracts with existing Canadian companies to partner on official development assistance projects, and often contributes financially to that initiative.
If a generic company were to partner with an importing country and have CIDA partner financially in the project, could that be a better model for the Canadian rollout of the Canadian access to medicines regime?