I'm sorry, I don't have a suggestion for wording right here to give to you. But one thing that I've certainly talked about this afternoon is that one could write that when one applies a precautionary principle to the following compounds or classes of compounds with the following inherent hazards associated with them, that there can be no tolerance for allowable intakes. We should enact pollution prevention programming to ensure that those emissions are eliminated. That kind of language would certainly help. And it may already be applied to certain other classes, the bio-persistent toxic and inherently toxic compounds. But the next step--i.e., that restricted status and pollution prevention programming shall be required--is still missing.
The question of jurisdiction is a whole other issue, because you have federal and provincial jurisdiction. Certainly, as a start, you take a look at federal enterprises where there is no clear dispute over who has jurisdiction; you apply the principles and practices of federal enterprises; and you demonstrate, from the federal government perspective, what should be done. If provinces take that on, then that's great. There's a whole issue of how you can strengthen CEPA to address the jurisdictional issues as well. That's a complicated question.