What this discussion is about...if we break it down to the lowest common denominator, it becomes a vote. There's a little bit of a new wrinkle into the switch idea, because it certainly would seem to me—I'm hesitating to comment because I don't want to sound like I'm speaking for government—that we're at a committee here and having a discussion on this. A year's extension of exclusivity for patent protection doesn't seem to be the end of the world.
I don't know how Canadians lose by that. It encourages the switch, which is what you've discussed, and it allows some additional patent protection for a one-year period, which is fairly brief, to get out there in the marketplace.
Do you have examples of how many drugs or number of drugs that have come up that could have been switched for a different application and that didn't occur because they couldn't get the one-year patent protection?