There are many that have been well addressed by previous witnesses, but if I were to pick two that, I think, are highlighted for us that are primarily managed under equivalent acts, one would be demonstrable need. Again, looping back to the risk-based approach, demonstrable need would not be embedded in a risk-based approach. That would be a nebulous and undefined space of what is demonstrable need, so that would move us away from a global risk-based approach.
The other would be our approach to confidential business information and ensuring that we are internationally aligned in how we do that so that we don't put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. With that, I would say that often the drive for additional transparency on CBI is around a belief that that'll create public trust. I think what's important is not the raw data but the explanation of our regulatory processes by our government to our citizens, explaining how the government came to its decision and summarizing what it reviewed, because most people won't know what to do with 700 pages of toxicology data. They want to understand what it meant, how it was well reviewed and what the outcome of that was.
You can still get to transparency and trust without damaging competitiveness in the marketplace. There's a balance there.