Yes. Thank you very much.
I agree with your point that similar size, shape, and colour of generic medicines—similar trade dress—is important for patients, particularly seniors, who often are taking many medications. If they are switched from one manufacturer to another, it's much easier to maintain their regimen if the product looks the same. That is the basic reason that the medicines look similar.
With regard to the trade-related aspects of the intellectual property agreement—the TRIPS agreement, which is a specialized intellectual property agreement under the World Trade Organization, and Canada is a member of that—the first thing I would say is that this agreement has been in place since 1995, and no one in the courts or before the courts has ever suggested that Canada's current definition is not consistent with the TRIPS agreement. That's the first thing: our current definition of “distinctiveness” is consistent with TRIPS, and no one has said that it's not.
The Industry Canada witnesses said that the new language was taken from the TRIPS agreement. It's our view that the two sections they pulled out are actually slightly different and that the wording is contrary to what they had intended.
We're suggesting very minor changes to modernize the definition of “distinctiveness” such that it would continue with the essential implication of today's language, that there has to be actual demonstration that the product is distinguishable. That is consistent with TRIPS and that is what we're proposing.
I don't see any conflict with the TRIPS agreement. In fact, I think the modernization attempt in this case is simply introducing uncertainty into a highly litigious industry and is going to create a lot of litigation and perhaps a change in the law that is unintended. As we've been told, it is not the intent to change the substantive law here.