Thank you.
In order to speak to the pros and cons, I think we only have to look at what the historical situation has been and the direction in which other countries, such as the European countries, are moving.
Through the priority substance list exercise, we've seen that it is very nearly unworkable for government to continue carrying as much of the burden as it has. It's incredibly slow and it's very expensive.
Industry works with these substances, it knows the substances, and it is able to provide this information when required to. It sometimes means going out to investigate further and conduct further tests. But as long as government continues to bear this burden, there's actually a disincentive for industry to get to know its own substances better. As Ms. Coombs said, if they have that kind of information at their disposal, it will not be a heavy onus on them to simply provide it to government.
Government will always and should always play a role in terms of regulating these substances. I think it would be problematic to remove government from the equation all together. But in terms of providing the information, again, it is industry that benefits financially. It's currently the taxpayers of this country who are paying for a lot of this assessment, and there's no direct financial gain for them.