Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Getting back to CEPA's origins, I think you presented it very well, John. It was a collection of other acts. We had the ocean dumping act. We had the nutrient provisions of the Canada Water Act. I'm trying to remember all of them. Of course, the main body of it was the contaminants act.
We really missed something, and I think this is relevant to the point that Nathan Cullen was making a moment ago. With regard to pesticides and radionuclides, although they were toxic chemicals, and although the effort at the time in 1988 was to have a comprehensive handling of toxic chemicals from cradle to grave, pesticides are only included in this act when they constitute waste. In other words, after they have no commercial value, they can be regulated under CEPA.
I want to ask whether in your time working with the department there has been a serious look and re-look at this matter of the different treatment of some toxic chemicals that are clearly highly toxic, clearly dangerous. Has there been an opportunity over the last 10 years or so—as I understand that's as long as you've been with the department—at relooking at this question of CEPA's carve-out, if you will, of radionuclides and pesticides?