That's a good question. The fact is that the American regulatory approach is very different from Canada's. In the United States, the regulatory approach has to be based on science, and excludes what we call the precautionary principle. If a standard is introduced in the United States, it's because a cost-benefit analysis has shown that it would benefit American society.
Recently, Health Canada suggested a different proposal, mainly based on a precautionary approach. As the science is evolving, it's difficult for now to say which of the two approaches is better. Health Canada is nonetheless holding up rather well. In Quebec, for example, six cities are affected by perfluorinated compound contamination. If the American regulations were applied in Canada, the same number of cities would be considered affected, but not necessarily the same ones. As you can see, the impact is similar.