Thank you for the question.
We did give you a bit of an overview of that in terms of costs. I will quickly highlight it as we go through it. One of the three elements of CETA is the right of appeal. It's pretty hard to predict what products you're going to have to appeal on and whether you're going to win them, and nobody is going to predict a budget based on whether you win an appeal on a drug case. That you can't cost out.
Data protection didn't change. That was the second of the three elements. Data protection remained at eight years even though Europe has ten years.
Patent term restoration is, as the question showed earlier, at the end of a patent, so these will be new products coming in. It looks as though what we are hearing—and I don't know this for sure, because it's going to take about two years to negotiate—is that it will be eight to ten years past the time at which we resolve CETA that patent term restoration would come into effect. That's why I can say there will be absolutely no cost increase during that period based on PTR.
To your point, IP is only one factor in the cost of medicines. In Canada, you can see from the PMPRB in fact that innovative medicines have been in negative growth for a couple of years. The provinces of Canada have been negotiating, whether through bulk purchasing or a joint body or it's actually on the generic side, to drive down those prices. Indeed, I've always believed the failed public policy of this country was to overpay for generics.
The Canadian provinces have all the tools to control costs and negotiate costs, and they are doing that. What we're hoping to do with the provinces is to show the value of innovative medicines so that a dollar invested in innovative medicines or vaccines can actually save money in the rest of the health care system, but you're right that they control their purchasing agreements with us.