Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to continue on this point, when you buy a product off the shelf and it says it has potassium in it, based on my recollection, there isn't a parenthesis that says “toxic”. So how would the public even know it's CEPA-toxic in Canada? Secondly, for example, alcohol is toxic if it's in its pure form, but that doesn't stop people from buying beer and scotch, and so on. Anyway, that's just one point that maybe you can respond to.
The second has to do with your suggestion that we target effluents at their source, as opposed to using a broad-based approach like CEPA and CEPA-toxic. I think this could lead to some legal conflicts, because I seem to recall reading that in Victoria, B.C., for example, there are those who say there's no need for sewage treatment, yet others say we have to do something about it. If I recall correctly, a few months ago the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Dion, said, “Well, if you're not going to do something about it, I'm going to regulate it under CEPA.”
I see your approaches as raising some contradictions and some legal conflicts. So maybe you could respond to both of those questions.