Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here at our meeting today. This is a very important area that we haven't covered in some time.
I'll go directly to you, Mr. Keon. Your presentation pointed out the changes to the NOC regulations. I have had discussion with other members here about this. In essence, if I am to take you correctly, it reopens the loopholes on the subject of evergreening, something that certainly I thought had been addressed some years ago. Not only that, but I thought the balance had been seen in giving the brand name industry data exclusivity. That was a way of saying we're going to take away what appears to be an opportunity for the brand names; at the same time, we're going to provide them with that exclusivity.
I note that the research component as a ratio of their investment is down. I also note that Apotex, according to what our own Library of Parliament has pointed out, is at 17.6% in terms of R and D as a percentage of revenue.
Going back a few years, I remember that seniors, provinces, and a number of organizations came together to decry this. Most notably, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the practice of evergreening as draconian. I was very surprised to see, following these things as closely as I do, that in the actual edition...or the first Gazette of this proposal—without much consultation, I add—the government freely admits that there will be delays in the generic market entry and that there will be costs associated with these delays.
Can you give us an idea of what the cost is going to be, given that there was anticipation, certainly by the provinces, that this practice would not be reallowed through the back door?