I'll try to be fairly brief.
It seems to me we're trying to do two things today. One is to figure out whether we can strengthen CEPA legislation by specific reference to vulnerable populations. And the second is whether we can strengthen CEPA by specific references to ecosystems not currently contained in the legislation.
Perhaps I will tackle the first question. It's interesting that the University of Ottawa folks, after their presentation, when it came down to what would actually be their recommendation for CEPA, really only wanted to amend the preamble to CEPA, and all the others were useful activities but not about our review of CEPA.
When I look at the child health environment, Ms. Cooper's presentation, it's only the last point that specifically deals with vulnerable populations, because it's about mandatory child health protective measures. Everything else is good, but it's not in the realm of our review of CEPA. To put more resources into child health or environmental issues is not part of the CEPA review.
Soon the first point, which has to do with these vulnerable populations, does the language that has been used in the new Canadian Pest Control Products Act, which only came into being in June 2006, meet the criteria that people are advocating in terms of strengthening language? Or is there some danger that it actually weakens the legislation because it tries to do too much, because it tries to single out individual populations. If you go with Dr. Keefe's view of the world, if you just say we'll go with the most vulnerable population and all the others will benefit from it, might that actually be a cleaner way of doing it?
So what I'm asking is this, and maybe we'll start with Ms. Cooper. Would you be happy if we simply took over the pest control language, which hasn't really been tested in any length since we've only just brought in the act?