Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't think I was up yet, but that's good.
Thank you all for coming.
This is interesting. I feel kind of bad for you. I'll tell you why I feel bad. You're being browbeaten because you happen to be companies that make a lot of money doing something right. And if you hadn't done those things right, we'd still be in the quandary we were in 15 to 20 years ago, when AIDS first.... So I don't think it's really all that fair to lambaste you about those things, but as I think Mr. Shipley said a little while ago, what we're trying do is to find out why Canada hasn't brought this about.
We have this wonderful idea—I think they call it Mr. Chrétien's promise to Africa. It was a wonderful idea, but it's just not materializing.
I can understand profit, I really can. It's what drives us. I was just saying to my colleague, it's not fair to suggest that your company has to provide all the answers. If we want to do that as a country, we need to shell out the bucks, to say it very bluntly.
I heard some charges, and I want to give the pharmaceuticals a chance to respond. I don't think they really had that chance.
First of all, the NGOs and the generics are opposed to the requirement to first seek voluntary licence. In your opinion—and I have a few questions, so maybe you could just answer this quickly—why is this requirement needed? Is it conceivable that a voluntary licence would be granted?