Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.
I'm not a regular member of this committee, but I note that this is our third meeting on this subject matter.
Just sitting here and listening, I think that whenever the committee begins its deliberations we should have in front of us the eight points the professor made. The chairman made some comments about how startling it was in contrast to the evidence that has previously been heard. But I think the professor has made some very interesting observations from what I would characterize as an objective point of view, being a professor of law, as opposed to someone acting on behalf of clients or who has produced some intellectual property upon which he's going to be making a profit. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm very interested in, and was surprised to hear, the professor's testimony.
Let me just play the devil's advocate here. I wonder if there's a difference between a person who buys a $10 fake Rolex, clearly knowing it's a fake Rolex—No one in the world would expect to purchase a Rolex watch for $10. That's one side of it.
On the other side of it, we have the example that Mr. Sotiriadis gave us, where a fake product, I presume, is being sold as a real product for $65. Surely that is fraud and there is some section under the Criminal Code that would deal with someone who is passing off a fake product as a real product and thereby ripping off a consumer, on the one hand, as opposed to, on the other hand, a consumer who knows perfectly well that he's purchasing something that is not the real item.
I'm asking both Professor Geist and Mr. Sotiriadis if there is something the Criminal Code already covers with respect to those people who are trying to charge real prices for fake goods—let's put it that way. Let's start with that.
Professor.