Would there be a problem if part of this proposed amendment were included? And that would be the (a) part, which talks about the environment.
The reason I'm asking that is that we were all the way through these hearings and we were trying to grapple with this notion of not just obvious poisons and old products that were a problem, but products that had dangerous substances that over a period of time could accumulate and cause health problems or leach into the environment and recirculate and cause more problems. And I think there was a general wish that we could somehow reference that. We're talking about chronic issues as well as toxic products. What would be the danger if we did that in terms of the resources you've talked about and the overextended nature of the department and the difficulties in terms of moving rapidly into the area of listing carcinogens and labelling them and so on?
You say we rely on CEPA. I don't know that CEPA has caused products to be removed from the market. And I would like to get some examples of when it comes into effect and how it has been used, because it seems to me that usually we're using the Hazardous Products Act when we're talking about consumer products.
So I'm just a little confused on the three avenues.