I only have two minutes.
I think your points are very valid except that I believe the Hazardous Products Act could have covered those, simply by either regulation or through certain amendments to it.
Let me drill down a little closer to where I think there could be concerns and problems.
It seems to me that one of the things that could have been done here was to shift the liability, the burden of observation, vicariously from the government to a liability or a responsibility of manufacturers or importers to certify the safety.
I don't see this in the legislation here. I think it would be incumbent, and I'd certainly like to get the opinions of some here, that manufacturers ought to have the responsibility not only to notify but in fact to certify that their product is safe, to meet not only international standards but also domestic standards, so we gain vicariously in Canada what other jurisdictions seem to be further ahead on than we are.
Can I get comments from some of you on this? It would make the border security issue a whole lot easier, which Mr. Burns is referring to. But more importantly, it would place the burden on those who are importing or manufacturing to certify the authenticity and the safety of the product first and foremost. It seems to me the bill may very well be putting the cart before the horse.