Yes. The whole world uses a risk-based approach. The problem is—it's a quote from the University of Ottawa professor that was read—when we talk to other countries about what the Canadian approach is, we have to get beyond the confusion that the word “toxic” causes. Once we explain how it relates to what we do under section 64, then it's clear that we're all using a risk-based approach. But their view of the word “toxic” is exactly what the University of Ottawa professor said: it's a hazard-based approach.
When you get into CEPA, the way it uniquely defines it, and it adds exposure, then they understand that what we are doing under section 64 is risk-based, and is what they're doing. That's where the vagueness comes in. It's because the common person understands “toxic” in the way the University of Ottawa professor phrased it--it's a hazard-based approach. If they understood the complexities of CEPA—that it really isn't a hazard-based approach, it takes into account exposure and risk—then I don't think we would have that problem. But most people, in good common sense, don't understand the complexities of CEPA.
So that's where we have the vagueness, because of that disconnect between the conventional way “toxic” is understood, which is hazard-based, and the way CEPA redefines it to be risk-based.