Thank you very much for the question.
The reason we did this report is exactly to underscore that there is a problem. So my previous comment was not on the management, which is what this audit looked at; the previous comment was on the assessment part.
On the management part, the reason we did this report was for exactly the reasons that you've underscored right now. We picked a range of toxic substances that pose health and environmental risks, ranging from cancer to reproductive problems to development problems, particularly in children.
We know that scientists have known for years that children and infants aren't little adults, so exposure of even minute amounts of these substances can create significant, acute problems over the long term. Particularly for children, we pointed out several problems, including what we've discussed this morning: products that can be found on the shelves in Canada which exceed acceptable limits and therefore pose health risks to the most vulnerable segments of the Canadian population--children. That's the first point.
On the second part of this, Mr. Chair, if I may say so, I think the previous member's question on the issue of precaution is exactly at the heart of this question, and it is in the assessment and management process that the precautionary principle, in my understanding.... And these are complicated questions. When does the weight of evidence stop because there are some unknowns? And when you don't know, when do you then say that we can't authorize, license, or let these products or these exposure rates come to the shelves or expose Canadians to them?
That, I think, is an important debate and an important discussion, which the whole idea of the precautionary principle, from the Earth Summit and before, was intended to address. In the face of the risk of irreversible damages, you should err on the side of precaution. We do this in the business world. We do it elsewhere.
Finally, Mr. Chair, if I may, the reason we picked these chemicals, and the range of these chemicals, is that they last for a long time. They're persistent and they're bioaccumulative. On the risks related to long-term, low-dose exposure to many of these chemicals, we simply do not know the answer. But we do know that in Canada today, one to three or one to four adults will be diagnosed with cancer. We know that the Canadian Cancer Society has said there are many reasons for this, but one of them is environmental exposure rates.
That's just to underscore the reason we've done this audit and the reason we've had excellent cooperation, not only with the two departments but with many others, including NGOs we have worked with on this: because these are serious environmental risks and they're serious health risks.