Environment committee  When you were talking about it, it's basically multi—

Environment committee  Sure. Multifactorial analysis is what I was talking. That is the terminology for that type of model, meaning that you basically analyze several dimensions of data all together. It increases the validity—it is true—of the forecast, meaning you can guesstimate much better from your starting material what the contaminant is.

Environment committee  I think you can actually.

Environment committee  First of all, I hope the Canadian government at all levels communicates, for example, Environment Canada and Health Canada and their jurisdictions. More collaboration makes for more data sharing and often, to do any computation you need data. Many times, this data is obtained but because they are under different jurisdictions, the data are not maximized or integrated or treated properly.

Environment committee  For the assessment.

Environment committee  Yes. Again, methodology varies very significantly. Most involve simply weighing the different types of compounds, writing the effect of efficiency, putting the different impacts, and using factorial analysis for it. It's mostly factorial analysis in combination with the weighing of the data over a large dataset.

Environment committee  It was recommended but not enforced.

Environment committee  I think your question has two aspects. First of all, in order to know the hazard, you have to observe it and you have to experiment. Then in order to make an assessment, you have to integrate it, and then numerically assess it and make it simple to write the risk assessment. In that case, you have to do it properly, but you can decrease the cost by going to a pilot study first in several targeted areas, and then do the more comprehensive study, in the same way as Germany and some of the other European countries are doing.

Environment committee  That is what I suggest, and please note that the particles that I'm looking at, for example, are chemicals. Many of the contaminants in the air we are talking about are actually in the soil and the water, but because of the wind and the atmospheric processes, they have a chance to have an affect, not only locally but at a longer distance.

Environment committee  Absolutely, and that was what was written in my report. We have to do life-cycle analysis—

Environment committee  —physical, chemical, and biological, not a life-cycle analysis that is limited to carbon. The reason scientists started to bring in carbon was that it was a very easy commodity to talk to politicians and policy-makers about. The question is much more in-depth.

Environment committee  I think having access to clean water and clean air is a human rights issue. In my mind it is already a given, but from a legislative point of view, you can reinforce the recommendation that you have. You already have a recommendation. We can use sustainable technologies, which have become cost-effective, particularly during the last 10 years.

Environment committee  This is actually cleaner than even hydro electricity, which in some cases, in barrages produces mercury.

Environment committee  We have the know-how.

Environment committee  Aerosols weren't generated yesterday and will change tomorrow. They've been there for a long time, a few billion years. Coming back to your question, your question is very nice. The way I would write it, I would do it the same way as I did with the Europeans, by looking into what we know now and what the emerging fields are that are coming.