Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
You really put your finger on it when you said that Health Canada does an excellent job at developing standards, or recommending standards, but that its transparency can always be enhanced. I think that's really the purpose of this bill. It's not to cast doubt on the good work that Health Canada does; we know that Health Canada is an international leader. But we need a way of keeping a check on the level of Health Canada's excellence, if you will, so that Canadians, NGOs, and the media can see whether it is operating up to its own standards of excellence. One could see a situation where funding constraints may lead to Health Canada's work being, perhaps, a little less rigorous, and so on.
The point of this bill is really to require some accountability on the part of Health Canada as to whether it's fully carrying out its mandate to do international comparisons. That's really the purpose. It's not to cast doubt on Health Canada.
I would like to comment on your remarks on the U.S. system. I know that the U.S. system relies a lot on legally enforceable contaminant guidelines, but that's not really what I want to look at. They have a different system in that respect, but they do have a system wherein they have what's called the “contaminant candidate list”. Every five years the EPA is required to select at least five contaminants from the contaminant list and make decisions on whether to regulate those contaminants—and they can decide not to. It's a way of keeping the system dynamic and forward-looking.
I'm wondering whether you think this bill, by just requiring Health Canada to look more closely at the comparisons it's making internationally, would not set in motion that kind of forward-looking process or outlook.