Thank you very much, Mr. Chair
I’d like to thank all the witnesses for joining us today.
As mentioned earlier, I think that one of the common goals for this committee’s study is to compare what departments put forward in September and to seek your feedback and recommendations on these proposals. I’d like to thank everyone who has made recommendations.
Mr. Ross, my question was similar to the one my colleague asked. I think it has been answered. In practical terms, reference was made to amending the mandate; the preamble states that care should be taken to apply an economic lens. How can we be more ambitious?
You’re saying that that is not enough, but what do you mean by that? Where can we position that exactly? Can you expand a little more specifically on what you had in mind? That would help us in our study.
In recommendation 1, you call for amending the mandate of the Pest Management Regulatory Authority, or PMRA, to ensure they consider food security and economic impacts. That’s also exactly what is already in the preamble. You wish to amend the mandate. Do you have any specific suggestions that you can share with us? If you could send that to us in writing, that would be more than sufficient. I’ve got a number of questions, and I’ll try to get through them all.
In recommendation 2, you go into detail about leveraging reviews and best regulatory practices from other trusted agencies. We just heard officials tell us that they have made significant progress on joint reviews, starting with the European Union, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, followed by mutual recognition agreements.
Do you think that is a step in the right direction? Would you want to be more ambitious? Can you be more specific about what you would recommend in this context?