Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other day, I am not sure if it was Saturday or Sunday, I was up late watching television, channel surfing, and ran across a presentation given by Mr. Robert Kennedy Junior on corporate pollutants and corporate law.

The interesting part was that the speaker, who was a water specialist, afterwards was thinking that there were a lot of airborne pollutants that were transferred to the northern regions, northern communities, and it may have a direct link to the health of the people in those regions. Those are not positive health effects, I imagine.

Can I suggest that the department look into that program, I believe it was Saturday night on CPAC, headed by Robert Kennedy Junior, and have a look at that discussion. I would also like to know, when was the last test done? From the Minister's answer, it sounds like the department has done several tests. What are the results?

Did it find more contaminants in the water progressively or is it decreasing? Where were the tests done? Primarily in the populated areas? It would be nice to have a full range from east to west, south to north. This is an area that I think the department should be very cognizant about and have information available for the concerned public.

I believe that concern is going to be on the rise. It is not going to be on the decline. As we know, the pollution in southern urban cities is getting higher and we are not going to escape that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Has the department worked in collaboration with the federal authorities in this area, with the social envelope in the health area? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there a threshold of contaminants that is acceptable, which would be considered acceptable for human consumption? Specifically dealing with water, what is the table at? Is there a standard? If you go above that standard, is it no longer safe or it is no longer deemed safe? A question in the area of testing, are they using other mammals, fish, ducks, animals that use the water quite frequently? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is testing that is done on various animals. The safe levels are different and are recorded by the various scientists who actually do the testing. I would not be able to quote the exact detail, but I can commit to having the safe levels communicated. It also involves how it is digested and whether the nutritious effect of the food that is being digested is often weighed by the potential for contamination. There has to be a weighing of the benefits versus the risk.

A lot of that information has been published through the Department of Health and Social Services with the federal government in various research documents that we have produced over the years. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to know that there has been active work done in this area. I am just wondering if it is pan-northern, right from Newfoundland to Alaska, or even the circumpolar world. I am sure the eastern seaboard would have more contaminants than central Canada. The studies in the east may be a good indication of what we can expect in the central Arctic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree that there has been a considerable amount of research. The circumpolar countries have done a considerable amount of work in the environmental contaminant area. The department was very actively involved in the matter of breastfeeding and breast milk and the impacts of contaminants on nutrition with pregnant moms. There was a cord blood monitoring done for a number of years that actually gave baseline information on contaminants and pregnancy. We have actually worked very closely with our Arctic neighbours in trying to make sure that information was systematic and relevant throughout the Territories.