Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank our guests for being here today.
Mr. Keon, I've heard your testimony and your responses to some of the questions. I'm not sure if you're a glass-half-full or a glass-half-empty kind of guy, because your comments confuse me a little.
First you talked about the $2.8 billion potential increased costs, and then, when you were challenged on it, you suggested that it could be $1 billion and not implemented for the next 10 years. If you're going to make a comment like that, my own suggestion would be that what was then might have been then, but to keep it current is I think more helpful for the committee and perhaps for others you speak to.
Second, you said twice that implementation is critical. I think we get that. From where we came to where we are, and even where the Europeans came in from, I'm not sure why you'd presume that implementation wouldn't be done the right way. I have great confidence, as I heard Ms. Campbell talk about, in terms of our committee and all they have done, especially with regard to where the Europeans had come from.
I guess the third thing, though, or the other side, is that it's your expectation that litigation will be reduced, so that'll be a good thing for your industry, for your plea, from where the European position was to where we are, and also, there's an export exception.
Here's my question of you. I know how a lot of various industries in Canada often will compete with each other and with other jurisdictions across the country, across the continent, or across the world, but I'm not as well versed about how it works within the generic world. Does that export exception give the generic companies in Canada an opportunity to sell their products? What does the fact that it's been put in place mean to your industry?