I think Mr. Moffet has answered some of the questions we would be posing. As I said, in 1999 some 13 of the substances that had been assessed were left incomplete, and we wanted to get some closure.
What I probably would be interested to know is a little bit more about the management side of the equation. In 1999, for example, for those 25 substances that had been declared, the department put in motion 14 major industry consultations. They were called strategic options processes at the time. At the conclusion of 1999, 9 of those 14 had finished their work; they had generated something like 50-odd recommendations that had been accepted by ministers, but there were no resources attached with those recommendations.
We would want to know whether you have implemented those recommendations. Did you get resources? They called for things like writing regulations, developing codes of practice, and getting more information.
In fact, in 1999 we broke down a number of those recommendations, and even though 55 recommendations sounds like a lot, in fact very few of those recommendations were risk reduction measures. They were education programs. They were training. They were to get more information, but there wasn't a lot that said what was going to be done on the ground to reduce the substances.
At the end of 2002 all the consultations had been completed. Now we're up to about 75 recommendations, and again we'd ask the same question: have they been implemented, and what evidence do we have that the risk is being reduced, that releases to the environment are going down as a result of these recommendations?