Well, I'm getting it a bit more, so I thank you for that. I look forward to reading more of your formal representation on that, which is a nice segue to Mr. Keon.
Mr. Keon, it looks like you're talking specifically to one issue as it relates to the Trade-marks Act. It didn't sound to me like you didn't want to modernize the Trade-marks Act, you just wanted to make sure that it was not counter to the tradition you've had with regard to generic drugs.
Here's my question. I look at page 3 of your presentation, and I'm a little confused. Mine's just a philosophy degree, so I have to read this a little more carefully. As I see this, there are two sets here on page 3, at the very bottom. There's the CGPA proposal compared to the definition of Bill C-8. There is the definition of Bill C-8 compared to your proposed revised definition. Then below that is your proposal compared to the definition in the current act, where you have the definition of the current act versus the proposed revised definition.
From your perspective, where are you going? Where would you like to see this? I think it really does centre on the point you made about “distinctive” in relation to a trademark, and that which is inherently capable of distinguishing and so on. That is your definition concern. I see a couple of proposals here. From the standpoint of your association, where are you looking to take this?