It's all very complex and interrelated, but essentially, the original CAMR legislation, Bill C-9, made reference to things like the WTO waiver decision. To do that, a number of the definitions were technical; WTO is used, so there's a definition of WTO to tell you what the World Trade Organization is.
For “General Council” and which General Council, it tells you that. But it also, importantly, tells you about the “Decision”, which is referred to throughout the legislation as somebody importing or exporting in conformity with the authorization.
For “patented product”, again, it's a technical definition to tell you what it means. It's defined in terms of infringement. That's what this is about. It's about authorizing otherwise unauthorized users to infringe.
So these play both a definitional and a drafting role throughout the original legislation. Those references have been removed in Bill C-393, so they may or may not have much impact on Bill C-393 itself, but they do have an impact on the overall schema, in the sense that it loses the tie to the WTO agreements, both the main agreement and the TRIPS, the trade-related aspects of intellectual property agreement.