It is an important issue.
I would say there are some amendments that were brought in Bill S-5 to make the regime run more smoothly and balance that transparency with the protection of the confidentiality. Now, if the bill is adopted, suppliers of information who claim confidentiality would be required to provide reasons for that confidentiality. Having those will make it easier for departments to determine the validity and release the information.
There are also changes to the provisions that allow for masked names. Sometimes even the name of the substance is masked to allow for innovation and to protect competitive advantage. Now with the amendments, there will be a presumption, which could be rebutted, that after 10 years the name could be unmasked. If it goes on schedule 1 and if it's found to be toxic, it could be unmasked, or if it's being risk-managed, it could be unmasked.
Those are the examples.