Okay, thank you.
I apologize, but it's easier.
On the specific example, we are aware of the plant and the potential implications for the plant that will flow from the regulations that we are developing to deal with asbestos. We are in discussions with the plant and I do not think those discussions have concluded, so they remain under way. If you want more detail, I can get it to you. I don't have anymore detail, but I'm aware of the discussions.
More generally though, the point is that regulations always affect businesses and they can impose costs on businesses. One of the reasons that we take a long time to consult on the development of regulations is to make sure that we understand those implications and that we manage those implications to the extent possible, while recognizing that in some cases, in order to achieve an environmental outcome, certain timelines have to be imposed.
More generally, the overall design philosophy for environmental regulations at Environment and Climate Change Canada is to impose performance standards. What is the outcome that we're looking for? We'll tell you the outcome and we'll tell you the timeline. We won't tell you how to achieve it. Generally, that's the approach that we take across all of our regulations, including climate change regulations. The specific example you talk about is a very different one, where of course, there is concern about the use and potential entry into the environment of a toxic chemical. Therefore, we need to ensure that substance is not used in a way that it can enter into the environment. We are in discussion with the facility to determine whether there's any way to achieve that goal of zero entry of asbestos into the environment, which can lead to all sorts of health problems, while allowing the enterprise to continue to operate.