I think the issue of the definition of “toxic” is a bit of a red herring in this particular part of the discussion and I'll say why. While the risk-based approach is widely taken, one has to consider that there is also, closer to the hazard-based approach, the emergence, as we all know, of the precautionary principle as a principle of international law, and one that's been upheld domestically in Canada. The reason a hazard-based approach, or one that leans more in that direction, is in line with precaution, is that we're talking about taking earlier action when we have some evidence of possible harm.
I want to make the link here to the categorization exercise. It is that Canada's monumental achievement, which I think we've all agreed has been met, only has meaning if, consistent with the precautionary principle, we accelerate those assessments and take action on the most dangerous substances and have mandatory timelines to achieve. That, to me, is the linkage: that in order to maintain the leadership role, we have to see where the appropriate places are to take a more precautionary approach, in view of what the hazardous properties are of particular substances in certain contexts.