Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today.
I am reminded of when the motion came forward. It was Pat Martin's motion, and I was health critic of the opposition at the time. Pat Martin and I sat down late one night around my office table, and we came out with wording that Conservative members could support as well. The motion came through, and the task force report moved forward. It took a little longer than we expected for that task force report, but it did come. I think that goes to what I'm sensing is a frustration that things may not be moving as quickly as some people would like, but that seems to be the nature of the beast in government.
The issue of unintended consequences has come up: if we ban trans fats and there isn't enough time to replace the trans fats; that in order to comply with a very well-intentioned law, people substitute substances that are more harmful than trans fats. They're complying with the law, but the result is completely opposite to what everyone in this room would like to see. I would like someone to comment on that.
I will ask my questions first, because I inevitably get cut off.
The other aspect is trade. What impact is there on our trade relations, both for exports and for imports of product? What would the elimination of trans fats mean to products imported from a long distance away or even from our southern neighbours?
Finally, we had quite an exchange about two months ago with the Canola Council and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. The exchange basically was about mandatory versus voluntary regulations. I see you quote the Canola Council in your brochure, but at that meeting anyway, they were advocating for voluntary measures. Unfortunately, they're not here today. I wonder if someone could comment on what window would be necessary for voluntary measures. Also, maybe you have a two-and-two solution, but what if it were extended to a three-and-three solution, or four-and-four solution?
Those are my questions.