I certainly am very sympathetic to making sure that we don't inadvertently change something that has been successful, and I haven't heard any other witnesses suggest that it's imperative that we change the definition of “distinctive”, except for ministry officials, who said they were changing it in an effort to modernize. But again, as you rightly point out, it may not be necessary at all.
I wonder whether any other witnesses feel strongly about the definition of “distinctive”. Is there an alternative view at the table?
No? Okay, that's terrific.
I just want to ask one other question. Another witness at our committee addressed in-transit shipments and questioned whether they should be excluded from this bill. That witness specifically referred to the experience with in-transit seizures in Europe, revealing that generic pharmaceuticals were often targeted.
There are two examples that I'm aware of. During 2008 and 2009, Doctors Without Borders found that at least 19 shipments of generic medicines from India to other countries were impounded while in transit in Europe. This included a Dutch seizure of AIDS drugs en route from India to a Clinton Foundation project in Nigeria.
I'm wondering about two things. First of all, why is it, do you think, that pharmaceuticals are often targeted? Second, would you agree that we should continue to exclude in-transit shipments here in Canada for precisely the reason that you're worried about, that pharmaceuticals would perhaps be targeted more often than other goods?