I'm in real trouble now.
I was going to disagree with Colin. I think, actually, there's nothing about this that weakens the definition; it goes in new directions that I think the officials are saying we can't do in this particular legislation. I think the amendment the Liberals have proposed is to take us in a direction that helps us deal with chronic issues and when you have substances in a product that, either through direct or indirect exposure, lead to health problems. Yes, as Diane Labelle said, it would be about a product breaking down and leaching into the environment and then back into the water supply and back into whatever. So I think that's really what is at the heart of this. How do you get at that broader issue?
Maybe we could take an example of bisphenol A, which has only been banned in terms of baby bottles but not anywhere else, yet we don't really know how much.... It's in so many different products and could leach in so many different ways that we don't know what that could mean in terms of human health, and we're not yet at the stage, I don't think, where the department is willing to say, let's ban all bisphenol A. However, given today's announcement in question period about banning lead and phthalates, I can see that it's possible eventually. What happens now when we know the dangers and we know there are problems, and how do we protect against that? I'd like a further discussion on that.
Secondly, I'd like an answer on the definition of human health and safety on page 3. It does talk about chronic adverse effects on human health. Would that in any way cover the words here around direct exposure or exposure through the environment?