We could have kept right on because of fact that the EU and the United States have a way of dealing with it that seems much faster, much more capable, and we're just trying to do catch-up with Bill C-8. I'm glad it's here but we just seem to be doing catch-up more than anything else.
I do appreciate the amendments that you have suggested we put forward. I would hope that in discussions with departmental staff they would view those as a real positive.
But I want to ask you a couple of questions about the “distinctive” issue. Maybe I'd ask Mr. Giddens.
In your brief there were concerns about the word “distinctive” under the act. You had suggested that the word “distinctive” be changed to the phrase “inherently capable of distinguishing” to replace the word “distinctive”. What were your concerns with allowing the word “distinctive” to go forward?