Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here for this very important study on science and technology. It hasn't been done in a long time, and I think it's important now that government starts to look at this to see how we can start stimulating more science and technology development here in Canada.
I'd like some clarification on a statement. In Mr. Keon's brief here, he made a statement, basically, that increased intellectual property protection had not led to increased domestic R and D spending for the pharmaceutical industry. He talks, as Mr. Vincent said, about this 10%. It says that big pharma is breaking its R and D commitment to Canadians, less than 2% of sales revenue is spent on basis research into new drugs, Canada's pharmaceutical R and D spending is well behind other countries, and that most new drugs are not truly innovative.
As we're looking at this right now, from listening to Rx&D, it seems there's one side of the argument, and from listening to the generics association, there's the other side of the argument. I was wondering if you could clarify both of your viewpoints on this very important statement, because government does play an important role in the work that both of you do. We're trying to do the best we can, but there seems to be a conflict in your opinion on that statement.
Is it true increased IP protection does not lead to increased domestic R and D and spending? Is that true, Mr. Keon? Could you start?