Yes. Indeed, it is a complex problem, there's no question about it.
Reference was made to the fact that some of the countries in Africa are getting their medicines from other, cheaper sources, and it's in many ways a challenge for Canada, because of labour costs and other things, to actually undercut those prices.
Another issue related to it is the consequence of our reputation with respect to our IP regime. I think that is something we can't overlook. I've read some of the testimony from S-232, the Senate bill, that's very similar to C-393.
One of the witnesses was Richard Dearden. He was representing Gowling Lafleur Henderson. He went so far as to say:
First, Bill S-232's one-licence regime is not authorized by flexibilities that are found in the TRIPS Agreement. Second, TRIPS Article 30's limited exceptions provision does not authorize Canada to abrogate its compulsory licence obligations.
I won't go on. I know that's not agreed to by those who feel that TRIPS is not violated, but I would like to hear from you, sir, from Foreign Affairs, on your interpretation of whether or not that is the case, that we are in danger of violating our TRIPS agreement with respect to C-393.