Let's just be clear here, what we're seeking is a substitution analysis. What Mr. Moffet has referred to is the toxicity analysis of the 23,000 chemicals. There was no substitution analysis done at that point. It's not creating a new list of substances; it's saying “of the ones known”. We took the friendly amendment from government to narrow the focus, to talk about substitution options.
This is important. We're not looking for some new analysis of toxicity or the airborne quality of one or another. That work has been done on most of these substances, if not all of them. What we're looking for is that substitution analysis. That's the critical point of this whole amendment. It bears relevance. The IARC list is not a comprehensive list that deals with airborne only, but some of them are airborne--hence, relevance--and it allows Canada to get on track with what Europe is doing under REACH, which is trying to find substitutions prior to the use or emittance of.
Let's not mix apples and oranges here.