Thank you.
First, in terms of your preliminary remarks about where we fall, that's obviously a difficult issue. If you have read our submission, you will see that it really doesn't take a strong position one way or another, but it identifies the areas of possible concern. In fairness, you've heard people with much more expertise about TRIPS than I will ever have come at it from two different perspectives. That's the nature of these proceedings, and I would expect eventually the government has resources--Justice, the patent office lawyers--who can study these competing views and assess them.
To answer your question about what would happen, of course, we don't know the long-term outcomes. My concern would largely be...in some respects, it's a question of perception. We've agreed to minimum standards within TRIPS. We've agreed to minimum standards in NAFTA. Do we want to go forward with a bill or a law that could invite criticism and possibly have another challenge, whether or not successful? Of course, we heard today that no one would challenge this, or a challenge would succeed or fail. Our position is largely that, ideally, the appropriate balance would be struck first so that this doesn't happen.
From my perspective, I don't think it's a particularly good thing for our reputation, as protecting innovation, to twice have the provisions of our Patent Act struck down as being offside TRIPS. It's a position being taken in the international community, and I suppose it's common sense. We've agreed to have an act that is compliant with TRIPS, and how does it look, twice already, to have been demonstrably wrong and put forward legislation that doesn't comply with our agreements? That's almost a matter of fact, I think.