So your position, then, for Canadians who are watching and following this debate, is that we should go with the recommendations of the referee, and the referee is Health Canada. You're telling us that the referee came here some weeks ago and told us to restate what you've restated for Mr. Glover--that the risk to human health and environment was formally assessed by CEPA in 1994 and 2000, and that these assessments concluded that none of these products were CEPA-toxic on the basis of exposure. You talked about the fact that substitution may not be possible. That's Health Canada's position.
If that's the case, why do I and all committee members here have a half-dozen environmental groups walking into our offices and sending us briefs saying the exact contrary, saying the exact opposite, saying that the science conducted by Health Canada was faulty, saying that it did not take into account cumulative exposure. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's spinning? Who's helping us come up with actual balanced decisions here?