With regard to flexibility, I was trying to indicate that when you're dealing with multiple levels of government, you need to understand how different parts of the country operate, There are different pressures, different economic profiles, and different types of industries operating on that land base, so that does change the context in which a particular region is thinking about how to best manage an issue.
The other thing I would say is that a principle in risk management under CEPA, but with other acts as well, for us at Environment and Climate Change Canada is to look at what we call the best placed act or the best approach. We think about the objective we are trying to achieve and then use the instrument that achieves that result with the lightest touch possible while still ensuring that we achieve our aim.
Voluntary instruments can be very effective, and sometimes regulations are less effective than you might assume. It always depends on the context. It depends on the type of risk you're trying to manage. The notion that's in the bill is that you develop a strategy and engage with the various interested governments, partners, and stakeholders to understand the issue and how best to manage it. Considering all of the activities involved in managing mercury at the end of life, I don't know it there's any one jurisdiction that has those completely nailed. It would be interesting to be able to pull from the best ideas from across the country.