I think as Pierre pointed out, they were trying to make everyone happy with the definition. The current definition has that piece about “required by the act or the regulation” so it's very specific. It goes back to the regulations we have for a label. It is a legal entity. It's important that the label is clear and concise and that it is approved by Health Canada as part of the regulations and act. When we were adding the word “prescribed” because “required by the act or regulations” had been removed, the lawyers had thought that “prescribed” would provide us the same level of certainty because it relates directly back to those regulations. But the words around “belongs to” or “is to belong to” doesn't convey exactly what that means. We don't know what it's physically attached to, is it a QR code, is it a website? There's nothing to suggest it is and nothing to suggest it's not.
On October 4th, 2016. See this statement in context.