What we're trying to do is scope things out here. What I'm getting so far, just to repeat a bit, is there's the act versus the enforcement resources, the timelines. It would be very helpful if you would parse that out for us.
There's another set of issues. They are we-told-you-so issues; that is to say, they are things we were told about back in 1999, and without getting into a complete revisitation of second reading and all the rest of it, they are things that, although rejected for a variety of reasons, are either still true or even more true. That's a set of issues; that's different from enforcement. We need to know what those guys are, because we're not actually revising the act as such. We're not doing clause-by-clause study; we're coming up with a general set of directions for the government.
Then there are major issues, as you outline, on which to some degree you suggest--this is in the nature of a question, and I'm thinking particularly of Dr. Khatter--that we look to other jurisdictions. Examples are flame retardants or the REACH provisions of the European Union. In this third category there are presumably well-developed international best practices, so you don't even have to reinvent this thing. These are big markets; they've already done it, and we're behind. For those, again, we need to know which parts of the act apply. I think that'll help us because it'll also give us a level of comfort that we're not sailing off into the great beyond.
Here are my questions. First of all, I know you're interested in our having a Great Lakes focus, but how can a Canada-wide act get geographically specific when the issues raised, whether they have to do with water or air or anything else, really could be found anywhere? That would be my first question.