Thank you. That's a very interesting comment. I think it touches on the fact that in all the things we do here our goal always has to be to find the right balance.
I think that's one of the main purposes of this study. It's to look into intellectual property to actually discover and find the right balance between patents and trademarks and everything else we're talking about, so that we are incentivizing innovation and not stifling it through the rules.
Now, on that, I'm going to go across to Monsieur Gagnon.
My comments will follow up on Mr. Regan's comments. You said that a total of $1.7 billion in subsidies goes to the pharmaceutical sector, which gives us approximately $640 million in return.
At the same time, compared to countries like France and Great Britain, at the end of the day, we spend an extra $1.5 billion on the pharmaceutical sector. I cannot believe that we have to spend more money although we have subsidies. We are spending an extra $3 billion to get a return of $640 million.
Do you have a suggestion? You said that we should perhaps consider lowering the prices to be in line with France and other comparable countries? Do you think we should decrease or increase subsidies for the pharmaceutical sector? Do you think that this would be useful? Or would it be possible to invest that money more specifically in innovation?