So you're saying that action should be taken now. What struck me first was that there are replacement products. In principle, it seems to me that should make it possible to introduce the regulations sooner.
I'm consulting the March 2008 issue of the consumer magazine Protégez-vous. What first strikes me is that there are replacement products. Furthermore, phosphate-free products are sometimes more effective—and I don't want to mention any well-known names—than products containing phosphates. In those containing phosphates, levels range from 2% to 6%. Phosphate-free products have been analyzed, taking the 0.5% rule into consideration. Not only are there replacement products, but very often they are more effective than the products containing phosphates. That seems a bit paradoxical to me.
There is another point that I'd like to talk to you about. The Library of Parliament briefing notes tell us: “The vast majority of phosphorus inputs from human activity are caused by agricultural practices and human waste management. Of this, a small proportion, perhaps 1% or 1.5% in total, comes from dishwashing detergent.”
I remember the arguments at the time my motion was studied. We had heard from a witness at that time, Mr. Carignan—whom we'll be hearing from again soon—who told us that there was a danger in using a Canadian rule and results, and in trying to apply them in Quebec's regions. He cited the Laurentians as an example—it wasn't particularly in the Hautes-Laurentides, where there isn't any agricultural activity—where there are contaminated lakes.
Are you seeing the same thing in your region? Isn't it clear that the contamination is very often naturally due to agricultural activities, but also, in some regions where there are no agricultural activities, to the contamination of lakes. So it's directly related to use. That was my first question.
A second thing intrigues me, and that is whether there isn't also an economic impact on the property values of residences around those same lakes. Let's take the case of someone who bought a cottage in 1960, when water quality was up to standards, and now, 30 or 40 years later, there's a contaminated lake in the same place.
Doesn't that also have an impact on those citizens who acquire these secondary residences, which, at some point in their lives, very often become principal residences? So there's an environmental aspect, of course, but it seems to there's also an economic aspect to this issue.