I just want to make a couple of points. Be careful with comparisons with the U.K. The U.K. prohibition applies to predictive genetic tests only and not diagnostic. There's a big difference. The predictive ones will materialize over time. The bill proposed today would cover both of those, so it's a much broader prohibition and would get into the kinds of diagnostic scenarios that Dr. Cohn was referring to.
The second thing I would note is that in Canada we issue very long-term insurance. You might have 30- or 40-year terms on that. The U.K. tends to have much shorter terms than that. One way you could keep premiums down, frankly, is to shorten the term of your insurance, so you would make people renew it every five years or every 10 years, and you'd be capturing that new information each time you did it.
Different jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, have a completely different market. They've narrowed their prohibitions in ways not contemplated by this bill. There are similar things in the States. Be careful with some statements that say that Canada is an outlier in this regard. We don't believe that's accurate in most scenarios when you look around the world.