I don't know whether that is the case, but remember that generics were once research-based products. Essentially they're copying products that were innovative; you thus can't have generics without innovation to begin with. By increasing intellectual property protections, you increase the desirability of Canada as a location for committing to research and development and ultimately running the trials and all the tasks that are required in ultimately commercializing the product.
The thing is that often the pharmaceutical industry is criticized because it says you haven't lived up to your commitment, but the thing is, the intellectual property rules are not a stagnant thing. We can't just look back and say, “The last time we upgraded our intellectual property provisions was 25 years ago. Why aren't they living up to their promise?” Maybe it's because other jurisdictions have not only provided more robust intellectual property protections, but also probably contributed to a more cohesive system that surrounds the innovation and commercialization of these products.
There are many elements to it, but ultimately, although they may not always admit it, the two industries are pretty much linked, because one's innovation becomes another's generic at some point down the road. The question is, how long is their exclusivity as the innovator before the generic can take it off? That's really the balance that CETA sought to establish.
