I think companies go to great lengths in their research. They don't want to market something that, as you've said, is going to have problems, and they go to great lengths to try to avoid that.
We also have, for new substances, in Canada and in other OECD countries, the system I described earlier of companies providing data that the government feels it needs to confirm the assessment the company has already made, and the ability of the government to ask for additional data. I think that system is largely seen as effective.
I've been involved in discussions about chemicals management, both in Canada and internationally. Although there are issues on the margin of whether new substance notification requirements in Canada and elsewhere can be improved, I think the main focus is on the issue I described earlier of the chemicals that didn't benefit from that approach, that were there before it was introduced, what are sometimes called legacy chemicals or existing chemicals.
We need an approach to deal with that. That's one of the reasons that, in CEPA 1999, despite the huge amount of controversy over an awful lot of the provisions, there really wasn't much controversy at all over the sections that required DSL categorization and screening.
Conceptually that was something that the chemical industry, for one, and I think others as well, supported as a good idea, to try to figure out how we address that issue of chemicals, and other countries are trying to pick that up.