Our concern primarily is implementation. In the particular case when you've gone through the process with the Canadian Standards Association through consensus and good science, and that standard is sitting on a shelf, it becomes very frustrating. It's the implementation time that is particularly of interest for us and that I'm sure would interest the Canadian Standards Association, going into the future, for other endeavours.
When you've gone through a consensus process, particularly for labelling—and we've addressed this in part of our standard.... We're particularly concerned that we cannot implement injury prevention strategies across the country, if we can't reference a standard. This has been particularly frustrating for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The ski industry as a whole can't reference a standard for helmet use, which has become a real problem. Even for parents who are putting their kids on toboggans, it becomes a real issue. Repetitive head injury, particularly in managing concussion, is becoming very important, particularly to families who have their children in multiple sports.
The science we're understanding now is that repetitive head injury is leading to learning and behavioural problems and early onset of dementia—all sorts of issues that we have to address. When something like this has gone through a process that we've already done and is sitting either in the state of a private member's bill in the House of Commons or sitting on a shelf not being used, I can't see how it's benefiting Canadians.
So our concern is implementation time, both under the Hazardous Products Act and, in moving forward into any new legislation, in how you deal with things in a timely fashion when you've gone through a consultation process.