Well, there's a long history here. Going back to 1969, we passed legislation providing compulsory licensing for Canadians, and that system applied until basically 1987. During that period, the role of drug costs in our total health care budget was effectively controlled and indeed went down.
After 1987, through Bill C-22 and then subsequently Bill C-91, we got rid of our compulsory licensing. The industry promised as a result that if they got extra patent protection, they would invest more in Canada. The target, as I said in my presentation, was 10%. They only did that for a few years. Now we're down to 6%.
The problem is that once we change our patent laws, they are locked in, particularly if they're locked in by this trade agreement or the CETA. But on the other side, there's no quid pro quo. There are some promises, but if they're not lived up to—and they haven't been lived up to—there's really nothing we can do.
They were supposed to minimally provide at least 10% of their revenue in R and D. It has not happened. There is no sign that giving them more patent protection will do anything more. So don't we learn from this experience? If we just give them more, with no obligation on their part to actually deliver anything, what's the benefit to Canadians?