If it's important for the interpretation for the rest of Bill C-393, as the experts seem to suggest, then it's an oversight on my part. My intent was to go to the “pharmaceutical product” definition. I have to admit that I did not realize that we'd left hanging some definitions here that might be important.
If they're really required for the rest of the act, which they appear to be, it would be good to bring them back in, although they weren't there with the current proposal.