I understand that the key concern here is resource implications, that it would cost more to adopt this clause than not.
We have schedule 2, which has 14 types of products that are prohibited. Item 14 is lawn darts with elongated tips. I think we're concerned about carcinogens and reproductive toxins--I certainly am--more than lawn darts.
Mr. Glover, you were saying that each jurisdiction is expected to create its own list and not go based on the IARC list. Are there jurisdictions that have essentially adopted that list, or a revised subset of that list, in their legislation to reduce these kinds of toxins and goods?