I'll make a couple of points, if I might. The act does provide broad discretion to take action and to decide how to act. Consideration of how the act has been implemented and whether the use of the act has been effective is, of course, a completely appropriate focus for the committee. That's not one that government officials can comment on, I'm afraid. Of course, you have access to the Canadian public. You can canvass a wide range of views about the efficacy or lack thereof of interventions or of decisions not to intervene on a range of issues.
You made a distinction between administrative efficiencies. I've tried to identify some administrative challenges we have, including how in some cases where it's obvious that action should be taken but the action is actually better taken under another statute. That's an issue we confront. An example is the wood stoves issue. Wood stoves are a source of air pollution, which affects people's health. We could address it under CEPA right now, but it would be completely inefficient to do so. I don't think I'm making any kind of political statement about the obvious inefficiency of regulating millions of individual wood stove users.