Can I very quickly correct something said earlier? The 93% statistic that I quoted was actually carcinogens. For known carcinogens, trying to compare apples and apples on each side of the Great Lakes, our assessment is that the Canadian facilities pollute 93% more. It is actually a narrower suite of chemicals than Mr. Moffet was talking about.
You referred to the chemicals in consumer products; in this area things have really fallen through the cracks of CEPA. I can go down a list of consumer chemicals that are in everyday products in our house; frankly, Canada is increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world in grappling with these things.
My son has squeaky bath toys--little rubber ducks and various little animals. The chemicals that keep those toys pliable are called phthalates. It's an example of a chemical that Europe is moving to phase out; they're of great concern in other jurisdictions around the world; there's been essentially no action in Canada.
Bromated flame retardants are painted on a lot of upholstery and are in a lot of computers. Again we see jurisdictions around the world taking action; there has been very little activity until recently in Canada.
I can go down a list of chemicals that are in your garments or on the chair you're sitting on. This is a particular area in which the federal government has lagged behind the rest of the world in risk assessment and attention.
In fact, I should tell you that in the last two years, in answer to a question from us directly to the federal government as to whether these things are even covered by CEPA, we've received two entirely different--diametrically different--answers. A couple of years ago we were told no; more recently we've been told yes.
At the very least, I would suggest the committee delve into this a little bit and assess the extent to which these things are covered by CEPA--or not. At the very least, it needs some clarification.