Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. As has been mentioned by, I believe, two different members, the main purpose today is to get some advice from you on the procedure of the CEPA review. As a government, we recognize that we have a responsibility and a requirement to have a CEPA review. We are over a year late in doing it. The last Parliament, unfortunately, did not do it. It was supposed to have been done effective March of last year.
So there is that requirement. I also want to begin with correcting a comment made, I believe by Mr. Silva, that it could be done in two to three months. Mr. Stack, you commented with respect to that—actually, both of you did—that you did not think that was feasible. I'm not sure where that two-to-three-month idea came from; it did not come from this committee. That's just a clarification.
It is a priority of this government to have as its first order of business the hope that there will be a CEPA review, and I'm very pleased that we are as a committee going down that road to do this CEPA review—for a number of reasons: number one, that it is a requirement; number two, that it's the right thing to do.
As I start off my comments, we're looking for your guidance and recommendation in doing a CEPA review that is effective, thorough, and timely. We have one year to do it. We have to make recommendations within a year now.
Dr. Khatter, you made some comments in the brief you provided to each of us—I think it was during the recommendations—in which you recommended that the committee should travel. I'd like you to comment on that, as to what extent. You made comments that we should inquire into the state of pollution during that travel, I believe, so that we get a complete picture of the situation.
So what is your advice on travel? Where should we be travelling? How much should we be travelling? Again, in the timing of this, if we think we have to have recommendations forwarded to the House in a year, then thinking back, when should the travel happen? What are you recommending?
You also made recommendations, I believe in bullet point number three, that CEPA should mandate virtual elimination of substances meeting the...(PBT) criteria and clarify and strengthen the definition of virtual elimination. As a starting point, Canada should achieve virtual elimination of all releases of carcinogens to the air and water by 2008.
So if we have recommendations that are presented to the House within a year from now, and then the House has 120 days to deal with them, that would give us approximately a year to incorporate those recommended changes. Is one year realistic, or do you believe that in that timeline you'd like to stay with that 2008 date?