Thank you.
I'll again start with the last question, the general prohibition, because it helps frame the larger answer, if it please the chair.
The general prohibition essentially—it's very simplistic, I acknowledge that—sets out for industry that the onus is on them to make sure the products they're importing and selling into Canada do not pose a health and safety risk. By extension of that—say somebody's choosing to manufacture outside of Canada—the onus is on them to have the appropriate quality control processes in place to make sure they know the ingredients coming into that product, wherever that plant is, and if there are multiple plants in different countries, they have the appropriate quality controls there to make sure the finished goods meet their design specifications and there is not an undue risk for Canadians with respect to the use of that product.
It would also mean they've done the appropriate research and testing on the design of that product to make sure it is safe and, when used properly, will not create problems as it moves forward. These are things industry does now for its own reasons in terms of liability and quality control. This is just building on that and clearly stating to them that the onus is on them to make sure that the products they bring into this country and sell to consumers are safe.
That is the fundamental principle behind the general prohibition that drives the action we would move.
With respect to the issue of inspectors, I'll call upon my colleague Robert Ianiro to elaborate further. But our intention with inspectors is to make sure they have the ability to go into businesses around the transaction of consumer products to make sure they can take a look at the corrective action they need to take—if it is properly labelled; if there are problems with seizure, to verify that the corrective order we've asked to be put in place has actually been transacted; and, if we're not getting cooperation, to seize products so we can do our research.
That is the intention with respect to the inspectors and the range of discretions afforded to them. The act does also allow for certain reviews of how we are using the discretion that has been afforded to us in this through independence.
Robert.