I'm just curious. With regard to simplicity, we're talking about some fairly complex legal documents. I'm referring not only to the cumbersome nature of the legal requirements and hurdles that have been placed before a generic to be able to provide, such as in the case of Apotex in Rwanda, but also, of course, to the strategic problems of addressing multiple barriers to access in Africa. Governments are different from country to country. The ability to administer is also made more complex.
I'm just wondering, if we had one player, an impartial umpire who had an interest, as dedicated by Parliament.... On the road to good intentions, we all agree we should do more. The problem is that what we are pursuing has not worked, and we're not sure about CAMR being the silver bullet to overcoming some of these trial-and-error issues we have found ourselves in for which if it's not Canada it will be another nation.
Let me address something in the form of a question for both of you. It is going to be an important one, and I know my colleagues will ask this as well. As CAMR is currently written, there appear to be two prevalent concerns. There are obviously others, but one deals with the obligations and the possibility of trade sanctions under WTO. The second concern is about rushing into Africa medicines that may not be appropriately approved here in Canada. Could I have your comments on either of those, please?