My history doesn't go back to 1999, unfortunately.
One example of each, for instance, would be that when virtual elimination was put in the act, I think we would have said right at that time that the need for there to be what's called a level of quantification...that you can't do virtual elimination until you figure out what the lowest possible dose is that you can measure.
We knew right from the beginning that that was going to be a barrier to actually getting virtual elimination, and it turned out to be a barrier. We've only had one substance that's ever been listed, and it's only listed because we don't really produce or manufacture it any more in Canada.
Besides that, in terms of new information, I don't think there was the same push in 1999 to recognize vulnerable populations that there would be now. For instance, over the last years, when we've looked at studies of lead in children, since we've taken lead out of gasoline, what we have found is that each time someone does a study that looks at children and lead, they figure out that the dose of lead that causes problems in children is actually lower than what we thought it was; it keeps going down tenfold. What we know now is that we need to be regulating, based on vulnerable populations like children, like first nations, who are getting high exposures, for seniors rather than for adults, and the legislation needs to directly reflect that. To a certain degree, it has started to happen without the legislation changing, but the legislation needs to keep up with the kinds of changes that are happening in regulations.