Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What Mr. Wallace didn't mention were all the cases where the Americans fast-tracked pharmaceutical products that turned out to be harmful and afterwards had to remove them from the market. So we're actually putting Canadians in danger if we don't have a sober, second thought, a testing system that is not subject to manipulation by the pharmaceutical industry.
I'd like to come back to Mr. Campbell. On your comments about the regulatory framework, we've discussed.... Some members have referenced the egregious softwood sellout, whereby Canadians now have to go to Washington to get approval on any programs to help softwood communities, even though we've now lost 5,000 jobs and counting as a result of this very poor agreement. We talked about energy integration earlier, which means the same thing--Canadians going to Washington to negotiate access to our own energy resources.
I'd like to come back to the regulatory framework. Some of the things that have been thrown around by some of the other presenters--health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, and labelling standards--are all things that Canadians feel very profoundly about. Many Canadians are concerned about not having a genetically modified food labelling law so that we would know when there are genetically modified foods in products.
If we continue to lower our standards to lower American ones, whether it's pharmaceutical products and accepting dangerous products in Canada or not being able to have the kind of right-to-know labelling that many Canadians feel very strongly about, is it not true that, essentially, it would mean Canadians would have to go to Washington to lobby--right now, the Bush administration--for the kinds of standards and protections that many Canadians feel are important for their health and the health of their families?