I understand some of this, but I don't understand it when it comes to substances in products where there is a known risk factor. In those cases, I don't know why you need flexibility in terms of dealing with human health and well-being. If we know that something is dangerous, then surely the law can be written in a way that says actions shall be taken when a dangerous substance is found in a product that can be harmful to human health and well-being. What you're saying is you can have recalls, you can prohibitions, but it all can be done in the context of flexibility, and the minister has discretion to report it to the public or not.
I think people want something more than just a risk-management model—and maybe this is where we disagree. They want a proactive government that says, “If you know something is dangerous, then do something about it”. Don't say, “We might test; we might not. We might disclose; we might not”. Why not just do it?