Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We'll try to define what's at stake. My question is for all three of you, and whoever feels most comfortable can answer it.
From the outset, I must say that your regulatory intention is laudable. I think even the industry agrees on this one. We're talking about natural health products. We have people's health at heart.
The measure you propose stems from an audit by the Office of the Auditor General. However, as things stand, if we don't modulate the regulatory intent by establishing more appropriate guidelines in terms of implementation and how to achieve the objectives of this reform, if I may call it that, it could ultimately produce effects contrary to those sought. The industry, among others, has pointed this out. We're told that the financial burden will be far too great. I'll be discussing this with you later, if I get the chance. This burden will be detrimental to research, innovation and competitiveness, and will result in major job losses. We certainly don't want to destroy an industry.
If we were to go ahead, we could find ourselves in conditions of unequal competition for regulated products. We could then see products making their way into Canadian homes that have not been approved or scrutinized at all. We can't afford to do that. People would use the Web to bring in these products. That's what I mean by effects contrary to the original objective.
To remedy this, have you done any impact studies, particularly with regard to pricing to recover some of the costs associated with regulation?
What do you have to say about these issues?