Mr. John P. Shaw:

I thought I had answered the question about the appointment of the individual member of the committee. I was the president under whose watch he was appointed. I explained the process we went through. I was not aware of his connection with the tobacco industry and I have to say that had I been aware back in September, it would not have stopped me from appointing him to that committee. There is no question regarding his integrity or anything relating to that issue. I would not want that to be an issue here. That committee has 17 members. There are 27 committees in the Law Society so the degree of oversight is a question of whether they have the expertise, are they known to other members and are they considered to be of good standing.

In respect of the second question, I take the Senator's point regarding the use of the word "extinguish" and the point in respect of what is left relating to the trademark. As I understand it, all that is left of the trademark is this bit that will now be removed from the packaging. If one takes it that this is the case, effectively, the trademark for useful purposes is extinguished. I do not want to get caught up in the word but if one takes away 65% of the package, and they have been stopped from advertising elsewhere under other regulations, and this is all that remains to them, the trademark is effectively redundant. I know it is not legally redundant. I do not know why they have not challenged it previously. It was incremental and perhaps they thought they could live with what was there. The Minister is saying he would be astonished if they did not challenge this one but it does seem that the trademark is effectively gone. There is nothing there to distinguish one from the other.