From my understanding—and correct me if I'm wrong—in Canada we actually, at all court levels, have to take into consideration international agreements that are ratified by our government, or signed by our government, whereas in the United States it's a different process; I think it has to go through the federal court.
Notwithstanding that, surely we can't be the first country to decide that this is an interpretation we need to take from the TRIPS agreement. There must be other countries that are signatories to the WTO that have put together new legislation to reflect this. I can't believe our officials would come up with a new law or a new definition based upon what they believe needs to be done differently, when we have the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and many other jurisdictions that our courts actually refer to in their decisions that would use this definition.