I'm not sure he's hearing this, so let me get started.
I think there are a few areas where the federal government can play a really valuable role. Some are on the harder, more regulatory side, and some are on the softer, more suasive and market-oriented side. For what you did on microbeads and other areas where you have very clear jurisdiction over the toxic contaminant aspect of a constituent of plastics, you can play a very strong role under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in either regulating them out of the production system or managing their life cycle in the production system. You've done that with certain toxins in plastics, and there may be other ones the federal government could look at.
More generally across the plastics waste stream, I think the federal government is the holder of the best science on this and has a really valuable role to play in setting the performance standards that you would expect them to meet, such as extended producer responsibility systems. Then the federal government can be more creative or more flexible on how extended producer responsibility, for instance, gets delivered. The federal government could set the outcomes that would have to be achieved or the levels that are needed in order to meet either diversion targets or the environmental outcomes that you want.
Coalitions of business, NGOs and provincial and municipal governments can deliver on those commitments if they are endorsed or set out at the federal level. They have a really valuable role, as difficult as it can be, in steering the federal/provincial ship that's trying to get harmonization across the systems.