It has in fact proven to be a problem, and that's why we're suggesting the simpler, slightly different process that we've outlined.
As you heard from MSF, despite all of their efforts, because the Canadian legislation requires that there be a tentative contract with a particular country already, and because the process set out at the WTO and in the Canadian legislation requires that the name of a country be disclosed before there's any guarantee that the generic manufacturer can get a licence, there has been a reticence, and unfortunately a fatal reticence, for countries to actually come forward.
We heard Mr. Stephen Lewis say earlier today that there is a history of intimidation here. This is not something to be taken lightly. When we see what the U.S. government has done, when we see the steps that have been taken by the brand name pharmaceutical industry to prevent countries from using compulsory licensing, it's not surprising that developing countries will be reluctant to say yes, we'll sign a contract with you, knowing that what you will then need to do as a generic manufacturer is approach the brand name company in Canada and disclose the fact that we're talking to you, asking for a cheaper medicine, which fact will then get to the U.S. government, who will put pressure on our trade ministry. We have to tell the WTO all of this before we even know whether you're going to get the licence that's going to let you produce the product we're interested in and supply it to us.
This process is backward. It needs to be reversed, and the Canadian legislation could do that if we legislate the kinds of changes that we've proposed to you in our brief.