Let's go with some things that are on the public record. I think there have been numerous articles and views about the levels at which the department has been resourced. There is concern from both industry and NGOs that the pace at which we are able to do the work that is necessary is frustrating. Industry would like more certainty, and NGOs would like more action. That is the view of partners.
As bureaucrats, you tell us how much, and we'll tell you how much we can get done. But that is certainly something you will hear quite a bit about as this moves forward.
From a health point of view, I think it's fair to say that our understanding of these issues is evolving. When it comes to implementation, one of the challenges we're facing is the human dimension to this. We're exposed to these things in the products we use, the air we breathe, the water we drink, food, soil, etc. So how do we deal with those multiple exposures? How do we deal with the cumulative effects--and there's new science--and make sure we're taking action that responds to health concerns?
It's fair to say that if the environment is better, health gets better. But there are certain things that are more important to do from a human health point of view than from an environmental point of view, and the science is evolving there. We need to make sure that our understanding under CEPA and our ability to implement CEPA keep pace, and that means different information. You'll hear a lot from NGOs and industry about bio-monitoring. The inability of this government to do that kind of work under CEPA is a problem...and the transparency that creates.
Those are some of the things you will hear, if you haven't already, as this moves forward.