I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, I think it's clear that we need timelines. We need required action and response to designating a substance to be toxic. I think we also need to make sure we understand the totality of the use of the substance, identify opportunities for substitutes, and learn from other jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the EU is taking a hazard-based approach means that it's likely we will find opportunities for substitutes and alternatives through that mechanism in the EU.
First of all, I think it's good to also build motivation for finding alternatives for substitutes into our regulatory system. I talked about timelines for phase-out. I talked about using economic instruments to provide economic incentives for the phase-out of substances. I think it's important on an issue like mercury to start with having a good sense of what the sources are of the contamination that we experience in Canada. Some of this may have to be resolved cooperatively with the provinces, so I would separate the question, where is the problem, from the question, what is the role of the federal government in solving it.
I don't think we should be afraid of exploring the issue in the context of CEPA just because we're worried that there may be certain components that you can't make a good constitutional argument over in terms of implementation. I think we should make sure that we gather all the information, find out what the problem is and what the potential elements of the solution are, and then in areas where the federal government maybe doesn't have the jurisdiction to act on its own, encourage cooperative action with the provinces.