Thank you, Mr. McTeague.
The best example I can give is the one that was in the Supreme Court of Canada three years ago in which the Retail Council of Canada intervened. Kraft, big multinational Kraft, tried to use copyright in a highly technical way to block the importation of perfectly legitimate Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe that were coming in at a lower price; they said there was copyright on this little logo, a tiny little logo on the chocolate bar. Justice Binnie, in his usual brilliant and witty way, asked the lawyer for Kraft if this was really about artistic creativity, which the lawyer for Kraft said it was. Justice Binnie said, “Do you seriously think that anybody's going to buy this chocolate bar, frame the package, and throw away the chocolate?” The answer was...of course, it was a rhetorical question.
That's what parallel import law is all about, to use copyright in a very technical way that has nothing to do with the product in most cases and is designed to achieve price discrimination and eliminate competition. So we've come up with what I think is a very simple amendment that we've given you that would combine both. There were several opinions in that Supreme Court case, and we combined the two prevailing opinions: the one rather technical one having to do with hypothetical maker, which you don't want to hear about, I'm sure, and the other having to do with what Justice Bastarache called “an incidental use”. So if the incidental use of this little logo on the label is incidental to the chocolate bar, which is the real object of the transaction—