In terms of your first question, I don't know if enforcement is quite the.... What we are talking about beyond the assessments, beyond discovering what the problems are, is what we are doing about them. We should think of the act as the directions to the bureaucracy and our departmental officials that tell them what they need to do. We can ask them why they haven't done more on pollution or on this chemical, but we really need to look as well at what the act is telling them to do.
There are many other models we need to look at. There's the REACH model in Europe. We could bring in an expert from Europe who would be able to show us a model of how to do this, a model that does move things forward because it says what you have to do--by this date, by this year, manufacturers need to submit safety data so we know that what they have on the market is safe.
Once again it's a combination of the directions given and how well we're fulfilling them. I think there are lots of people. We should go back to 1999 and invite the ex-chair of the committee, Charles Caccia, who's now at the University of Ottawa. There are people we can go back to, to ask what it is about the act--how much of it is the act, and how much of it just using the act properly?