Thank you for the question.
I guess the issue originates with the 2017 report of this standing committee, in which it recommended that there be national ambient air quality standards developed under CEPA. The purpose of them, of course, is to address a half a dozen or so substances that are problems nationwide, lead being one of the primary examples.
It's a great equalizer to have ambient air quality standards, because there are parts of the country—and Ms. Plain identified one such place in Sarnia—that have substandard air quality. If we had a set of national standards, we could redress that kind of problem for vulnerable populations like the population she is describing.
One thing we have to do, though, is that we cannot rely on the standards that currently Canada has, which are issued under sections 54 and 55 of CEPA. They're simply non-enforceable objectives, number one, and number two, some of them are as much as four times less stringent than their counterparts in the United States. We need robust standards and we need them to be enforceable, and then we'd begin to address problems like the ones that are being discussed here today in Sarnia.