I think we're looking for an act that brings consumer products into CEPA. Right now, consumer products are in the Hazardous Products Act under Health Canada, which means that the environmental and also human health impacts of anything that's in a consumer product isn't necessarily regulated by CEPA. This is a disconnect, because something may be scheduled under CEPA as being something we need to restrict, yet that doesn't necessarily give the authority for it. Substances like a flame retardant, for instance, which is a consumer product, are actually under a different piece of legislation. That's one part of it.
The other part is the move toward the REACH model, where we're looking at the burden of proof. For instance, even the pesticide legislation that is coming out has a new clause that says the burden of proof, in terms of registering a pesticide and showing it is safe, is on the manufacturer. We would be looking for something like that, which at its base is kind of core to the European model.
The third part that's very key is this idea of the substitution principle with the European model. When something exists that can get the same job done safer, we should be moving towards substituting for that, as long as it's cost-effective and doable. We should be thinking about getting the worst actors off the market and fulfilling our purposes using the safest stuff possible.