Thank you very much for the question.
As you say, there is a pollution prevention plan, and we've looked at whether that plan actually led to prevention, which is what one might expect. What we found is that--you're absolutely right--there was between 2003 and 2006 a 50% reduction in that source of acrylonitrile that they had identified, and it looked, from Environment Canada's perspective, that actually things were well in hand and that actually it was going to lead to absolute reductions. However, there was then that spike, which you can see in the graph in exhibit 1.1. That spike has actually thrown off whatever was going to be the favourable return in terms of absolute reductions, so what we looked at was from when the plan was introduced, first of all, when the substance was declared toxic, in 2000, has it gone up or down. As you say, there has been a 300% increase since it was declared toxic. It has about doubled since the pollution prevention plan was introduced.
But let me just add to that, and I think you are right. You can see from the graph that we, in the team, really made sure we got the most recent information in order to show that downward trend. We went out of our way because we were right up against the wall in terms of the date on this. But your observation is important that this actually is going down again.