Thanks for the question, Chair.
To respond to the first part of the question, which was actually more for Mr. Moffet, part of what we've been concerned about and we've spoken at length about at the CEPA review is the lack of timelines that occur in terms of getting substances on the schedule of toxic substances, and after they're on the schedule of toxic substances, the length of the timelines the government has for proposing regulations and then finalizing regulations. We've been pushing for the idea that it really needs to be sped up. There's no reason that it should have taken us until 2004 to even propose anything, and until now we're still sitting on trying to decide what we're going to do with PFOS.
In terms of whether this bill is useful, I think we're less concerned about how you get PFOS out of the system than that you get it out of the system. So will you support the idea of using prohibitions? But let's be clear about the fact that we don't need release limits and the fact that the prohibitions have exemptions. There will be releases: the chrome-plating sector, the electroplating sector, the plastic-etching sector will be still releasing substances. Those who are making semiconductors will still be releasing PFOS. We do need release limits for that area.
The other part of it is that PFOS is a substance that should be virtually eliminated. It is persistent. It is biocumulative. It is inherently toxic. It is appropriate and important symbolically to make sure that it gets on the list and is labelled for what it is, both, as Mr. Moffet says, internationally in terms of the symbolism and domestically in terms of CEPA.