I think I would say two or three things: number one, that I believe the intent of the legislation is good but do not believe the legislation is good. I believe the legislation is deeply flawed and have said so, and I think it needs pretty significant amendment to make it work. But I think the intention was absolutely a decent and worthwhile one. It took advantage of the amendment to the WTO decision, the decision that came out in August of 2003 and then was consecrated permanently in 2005.
Secondly, I think that what we're really looking at here is a way in which to get a compulsory licence issued, as other countries have done, a way that is streamlined, can be handled comfortably, and need not throw up all of the tensions and all of the difficulties that seem to be inherent in this piece of legislation.
The third point is, sure, CIDA can help in this realm, as it helps in other development realms. But you still have to have, if the generic companies are going to be able to produce drugs that are sold at low prices in developing countries.... Whether they're purchased en route by CIDA or by anybody else, they're still going to have to have the compulsory licence issued.
In other words, the legislation still has to obtain before CIDA can be useful, unless we're prepared to use public money to buy very high-priced drugs, which doesn't make sense.