I think what's glaringly obvious in Canada, compared to other jurisdictions—the U.S. and Europe in particular, but also Asia, where Japan might be another example—is a complete lack of focus, in that there has not been a policy decision and a political decision taken to say that for certain classes of hazardous materials we are going to restrict their status; we're either going to ban their use or we're going to have mandatory pollution prevention for those classes of compounds.
It's not difficult to determine which ones or who has done this elsewhere. They've done it on the basis of not being able to determine a safe level of exposure, or if so, it's fraught with uncertainty. Carcinogens are an example where that's been done in occupational health legislation for decades. We have some provinces in this country where in fact they require substitution for all of those. Mercury would be an example, if it's classified as a carcinogen or a reproductive toxin. You take certain classes of compounds and address those right at the outset, so you don't have a discretion to determine for every single thing under the sun, well, what's the political will here? Is there stakeholder consensus there? That's just a recipe for paralysis. In that respect, there is no direction in this country.
Mercury is an example of this. We all know it's a reproductive hazard. We also know it's a heavy metal, a terribly toxic neurotoxin, and I believe it's on the carcinogenicity list as well. So great, three strikes and you're out. But we don't have that law for mercury. Why not? The public is shocked; they assume we do.
For instance, in British Columbia, in the Okanagan—where I'm from—there are a number of teachers and students who are ill from mercury exposure because of broken thermometers in school labs. That's been a local event in the province, in the media, and so on. Why is this? People are shocked. The parents say, well, why are we using mercury in kids' labs? Of course they're going to drop them; they're kids. It makes no sense. We ban a few things from children's jewelry. We don't allow lead to be used in children's jewelry, but we have it in other stuff.
Whether there's political will or not—I agree that historically there hasn't been—we need to fetter discretion and free politicians from having to use political will on every one of these issues. Because you say, okay, for that class, as the Europeans or certain American states have done—genotoxins are an example.... Industry agrees with this; large portions of the chemical industry agree with this. Those are the people I work with. They say they agree to get rid of that stuff. But the political discretion has gotten in the way.