Thank you very much to all of the witnesses.
I'd like to bring Mr. Keon into the conversation today.
First of all, I want to thank you for addressing the trademark side of the legislation. I don't think we've had enough conversation about that side. I really welcome the way you've made quite clear why this piece is so important.
You talked about its being essential that the size, shape, and colour be readily identifiable for generic pharma companies as well as for pharmacists, but I have to tell you, I'm thinking about my parents. I'm thinking that if a drug that my dad is taking suddenly can be replaced by a generic, he might be terribly confused, if the colour, shape, or size changed. I'm comforted by the fact that you're doing everything you can to make it easy, particularly for seniors and other patients, to continue their treatment successfully.
I want to ask you, though, about this notion of distinctiveness. We've had a bit of conversation about it in the committee before. When we asked the minister, he responded that the change to that particular definition....
I'll quote the minister:
The technical explanation from my department is that the new language of the definition aligns with the agreements on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights...as well as with the case law of the Trade-marks Opposition Board decisions.
I took it from your testimony (a) that it actually doesn't align with the Trade-marks Opposition Board decisions, but (b), I don't recall your talking about the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. I wonder if you could expand on that for me a little bit.