On the first question, about compliance with WTO obligations, the proposals that are in Bill C-393 have been drafted with the expertise of people who know what the WTO law says, and very much taking that into consideration.
There is extensive discussion in our brief of this very point. It walks you through why it is that the provisions that are core to Bill C-393 are in fact compliant with the decision of the WTO General Council from August 30, 2003--which is the key instrument here--and with the underlying treaty, the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, TRIPS.
There are international legal experts who have been tapped to provide input in the drafting of this bill. I mentioned earlier that we convened a consultation of a number of legal experts earlier this year with the UN Development Program. We spent a day going through the provisions of Bill C-393, looking at whether these were compliant with the requirements of the WTO. The answer was pretty much yes.
There were one or two places--as you'll see in the report of that meeting, which is coming to you as soon as it's back from translation--where the experts said, “This is compliant with WTO. However, you could see that there might be some ambiguity here. So here is a recommendation about how you make a slight tweak to remove any question that this is compliant with WTO obligations.” That was the purpose of the consultation. We wanted to know if it was compliant with WTO, and if it's not, what we should do to address that. The answer was that it's compliant as is, but here are some things you can actually do to make it even better.
I think that will be useful for the committee's deliberations once you have it, and we'd certainly be happy to discuss the details there.