I think that the committee, as it embarks on this review, will hear a significant amount about this. When we officials went cross-country to talk with industry, it came up regularly. One of the realities that we heard is that CEPA is not what could be described as “citizen friendly”. It's a rather dense piece of legislation.
The last question is about “CEPA toxic” and what it means when something is inherently toxic but not “CEPA toxic”. How do you rationalize that? They were interested in the broad objectives of the departments of the government and in how well we are meeting those. So where is the reporting on state of health and state of environment?
There are levels of conversation that I think people are interested in, and I would support Cécile's response. We are meeting the requirements of the act. I think what we're finding is that people want different discussions.