I will answer in a circuitous way, so forgive me for this.
I want to come back to a comment that Mr. McCallum made about whether this really is a trade barrier. The fact of the matter is that the World Trade Organization has a series of agreements in respect to regulation. Two of the key ones that we are talking about here today are the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures affecting trade and the one on technical barriers to trade. That affects all kinds of regulatory actions. What those agreements are trying to do is to discipline governments to not put barriers into place that affect trade without a legitimate reason for regulating in that area. That is why we are very focused on the issue of science and risk-based measures. It's the foundation of the federal regulatory agencies, through legislation, to do those things. We find that a lot of the provincial approaches have a lot more vagueness and opacity to them in the criteria they have to use, unlike the federal government's regulatory approach, which is bound by international trade agreement obligations to make sure it doesn't do anything that isn't science-based.
So coming full circle to your comments about urban versus rural, in the context of trade-related barriers it really doesn't matter if it's urban or rural; it has to be science-based, it has to be risk-based. Whether that's covering the eyeshadow women put on their face, it doesn't matter if the women happen to be in downtown Toronto or in Prince George, B.C. It shouldn't matter; it should be a science-based, risk-based approach on the safety of that product for use by Canadians.
The same thing goes for agricultural products. We should have no different approach whether or not that product is being used in the countryside or in the urban areas. The PMRA, and Health Canada's food directorate, and the CFIA all have very stringent science-based approaches to looking at these things, so I think it's dangerous if we start splitting it up for socio-economic reasons.