Yes, I think that would be worth looking at more in depth.
My understanding of the way the equivalency provisions in section 10 are written is that the provincial governments basically have to do things the same way as the federal government to get recognized. I don't think that should be the standard. I think they in many cases have different approaches to tackling something and there should be more flexibility in being able to recognize the provincial approach in legislation as equivalent. Again, I think the Environment Canada lawyers should come up with the specific words; perhaps “similar” or “equivalent in effect” might be an improvement. Because as I understand it, right now if you took a challenge approach in a province and not a regulatory approach, that probably wouldn't qualify you for equivalency.
It's up to the government whether it wants to enter into an equivalency agreement or not. Just because it has more flexibility in being able to enter into an equivalency agreement if the language were changed in the direction I suggest, that doesn't mean they would have to, but they would have the ability to. Right now I think there is very limited ability to enter into equivalency agreements. I think that's illustrated by the fact that there's only one with Alberta, and I'm not 100% sure if it isn't a leftover from previous to 1999. That would be a question to ask Environment Canada and Alberta. But there certainly hasn't been any more since CEPA 1999; that's the only one there is.
I believe that's an area where we need to have more flexibility in the act for cooperation.