There are a couple of points I would mention about the act and authorities in the act.
First of all, the act does have a separate set of provisions regarding nutrients, so the act provides the federal government with the ability to regulate sources of nutrients. There are, I believe, some very old regulations on the books regarding certain products that contain nutrients. The act could be used again in the future to regulate other sources of nutrients.
In terms of other substances that have been designated as toxic, there are a number of substances that have been found in the Great Lakes, which are currently regulated under CEPA. There is full authority under CEPA to regulate any other sources of those toxic substances.
The final point I would add is that there is in CEPA, in subsection 330(3), I believe, the section to which Mr. Lloyd referred at the beginning of his testimony, the authority to develop regulations that apply differently to different regions in Canada. There has to be a clear health or environmental justification for such differentiation.
For example, if there is a particular air quality problem or a particular water quality problem, whereas the problem itself is national and therefore requires national intervention, it may be particularly severe in one region. Under the law, the government could develop a regulation to establish a specific standard for that region that is different from the standard that applies to other regions in Canada.
Clearly, I'm not here to comment on how the law has been applied in the past, but I wanted to explain to you the various authorities that exist within the law and how it could be used.