I'm emphasizing the new substances regime. I'll speak to that and the existing substance regime.
The reason I'm emphasizing the new substances regime is, in part, to be frank, because it's easier to address new substances. There isn't a commercial stakeholder in place. People's jobs aren't at stake. People haven't been producing and using these substances. So we can set these rules.
The other reason I'm emphasizing it is because it's widely recognized around the world as the benchmark for new substances. As an example, a number of countries are exploring the possibility of having mutual recognition among new substances notification regimes. Australia, to my knowledge, is the only one that actually has that kind of regime in their statute. To date, the only country's regime that they've recognized is Canada's. So they've looked around the world and said, “Whose assessments would we accept on par?” And they've said “Canada's.”
That is to say, our regimes are being looked at by other countries. We also look at what other countries do and we're actively engaged in that mutual recognition discussion around new substances. Those discussions occur at an operational level on an ongoing basis. Similarly, with respect to assessing existing substances, we participate in international activities.
One of the first substances addressed under CEPA was a group of substances that you'll all be familiar with, ozone-depleting substances, CFCs. We didn't do an assessment in Canada. The international community had done an assessment. We participated in that assessment, but we didn't do a Canada-specific assessment. The ministers of environment and health, and then the Privy Council, said “The international assessment that concluded this is good enough for us. We're going to take action.”
So we had people participating in the international forum. They brought the information back, and the government was able to act on it. We continue to do that.