I have just one final question, because we do tend to get caught up--and I've heard this from some of the witnesses--in this discussion about intellectual property. It sounds very dry and it doesn't sound like a very good excuse for not doing something.
How important are the rules around intellectual property, the sort of strictness of the regime in terms of development of new treatments or of the very treatments that we talk about, the first-, second-, and third-generation treatments for pharmaceuticals? How important is a good intellectual property regime in encouraging the development of new treatments for not only HIV and AIDS but for cancers and other diseases that people around the world would be faced with?
I think that's the crux of some of our hesitation with this bill, and I sense some of the hesitation of some witnesses towards this legislation: that it's around IP, which tends to be a dry subject. But it's a question of getting our heads around how important good IP policy is to the development of the pharmaceuticals we need.
It's a pretty broad question, I know.