I'll start, and I'm sure Monsieur Morel will add some comments.
We agree there is a role for government to regulate some aspects, principally in the area of health, safety, and the environment. For example, the federal government regulates sulphur content and benzene levels in fuel. Also, of course, many years ago it regulated lead out of gasoline. So there are good examples and appropriate examples for where there is a role for government to regulate, and when the health and safety of Canadians and the environment are specifically involved. For other areas, you start to get into the areas around vehicle performance in particular, and what we would see more as performance quality as opposed to environmental quality.
For some of the same reasons that Michel just spoke of, we think a regulated approach is perhaps not the most effective and efficient. There's an opportunity for a broader range of stakeholders to look at what can be a very complex set of variables that need to be considered.
Our view is that the CGSB standards process works very well. It has withstood the test of time for more than 60 years now, and we think that process offers a higher degree of flexibility and response, because as you will know in government, developing, preparing, and then ultimately implementing regulations is a very slow process. It's very difficult to get a new regulation in place. It's very time-consuming to amend a regulation, so I think for us that's another reason why this CGSB process is a more responsive process. Quite frankly when we look at those 32 standards areas, I don't think government would want to continue to grow its regulatory burden with another 32 standards it would need to enforce with a broad range of stakeholders.
Gilles, I don't know whether you have any additional comments.