That being said, there have been lessons learned, clearly. We are looking at our international partners. In my introductory remarks, I was saying that there are two basic philosophies out there. In one, border enforcement in particular is strengthened à la U.S. The U.S. is taking on a very strong and costly role to try to stop the importation of counterfeit goods. In the more moderate approach, in the E.U. for example, there is a partnership with industry, to try to set up a system whereby they share the cost and the burden of trying to prevent the entry of those counterfeit goods. So clearly we are informed by those.
We are very much informed by the industry in Canada as well. They've invested a lot of time and effort in the CACN report itself and in issuing recommendations. Obviously we're looking at those recommendations, because as my colleague, Danielle, mentioned earlier, until recently—five years is fairly recent in legislative terms, believe me—there was no attention given to the fact that global trade was so great and that the Internet was such a great factor in terms of incentivizing the flow of counterfeit goods and pirated goods. It is now clearer that we should be focusing more on the various legislation. I'm not just saying IP legislation; I'm also saying, as did my colleague, that we should be focusing on the legislation in terms of regulatory frameworks, in terms of what works. So clearly that's a focus that is—