Thank you.
The particular things I wanted to address were some of the premises, not just on this issue but on others as well. I would certainly agree that, for one thing, the context, as Aaron said, varies from one use to another. Context is everything in terms of when and how ammonia is used, for example.
Secondly, though, I think two things that Mr. Graham said are absolutely correct and appropriate. One is that the onus is on us, as he said, to deal with the fact that a substance has been listed for all the sound scientific and legal reasons that follow those reasons. That's where the onus properly lies, on industry.
Tied in with that is the fact that, as Mr. Graham said, the Government of Canada never came to them alleging mismanagement. True--and quite appropriately as well, because the process around the assessment, the screening and then what follows in CEPA, is about the substance. It's not about bad actors or anything like that.
That's why I would just say, finally, that it's important to realize that toxic stigma is about the products. It's not about the people involved.
I would ask the government to continue to look at that balance between all the reasons, the good reasons that Aaron has outlined, for going through a very rigorous and constitutionally acknowledged process to define and identify what is toxic against the actions that the proponents must then take in response to it. I think the whole regime is very carefully tailored. That's reflected by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It has evolved over a number of years.