Sure. I think it's on the accountability reporting side where it sort of makes a difference.
There's an assessment done per substance. At the end of that assessment, it says that these are the risks, these are the likely sources of the risks, and here is our proposed way of managing those risks at that time. It will set out some proposed risk management instruments. Then, when the first risk management instrument is proposed, we have a statement about the timelines for developing those subsequent risk management instruments.
I think in terms of the accounting—i.e., whether you're keeping up with the timelines that you'd set out—one approach, which I think is MP Collins' amendment, would say that on sort of a per-substance basis, when you're not meeting those timelines, put something in the Canada Gazette to say why you're not meeting the timelines.
The annual report would be a summary. Every year it would look across all the risk management that we're doing and provide an update on where we're at. It's once-a-year reporting on where you're at on the risk management versus substance—