As I explained, one of the options available in the act is to go through the very rigorous screening assessment process, find a substance toxic, list it on schedule 1, and then take a regulatory option that includes “taking no further action”. I think that's completely opposite to what Canadians expect. If this many resources are going to be put towards screening assessments and the answer comes out that a substance is toxic, people want to see mandatory action. That means that our exposures to this substance are going to decrease over time. I think they want government to be accountable to that as well. That might mean changes to monitoring systems and biomonitoring systems.
With the discretion that's built into it, CEPA is far enough removed from ordinary people's lives. All of you have said that, really. People don't follow this, right? They don't know that once BPA was found to be toxic, and that made headlines, that a couple of years down the road they had to check to see whether it was in their kids' lunch containers or not. That's why I think we need to lean towards these mandatory precautionary actions.