There's the concept of the balance. We've touched on this topic about the politics and the science with a few witnesses. There's this ideal of having science make the decisions on things that are harmful for human health and then having those decisions implemented. The challenge for the politicians becomes balancing out what the cost to society and the economy might be. It seems to me that as CEPA is written right now, section 77 and others allow so much room for interpretation as to what those costs may or may not be that it allows the minister and the government not to act.
Here's an identified chemical. The scientists--Health Canada, Environment Canada, whoever--have come forward and said it is harmful and causes health detriments and costs and pain, but the minister has a get-out-of-jail card on this one because there may be some cost to industry or society at large. By the act as defined right now, it's too loose.
Is that a fair assessment, or am I exaggerating the case?