Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, your statement earlier that there's no evidence of risk to human health is a challenging one, I think, for the community.
We heard from the toxicologist at our last meeting that the findings were really shaped by the design of the investigations and this designation as a commercial site. What she told us was that the consultants looked only at two exposure pathways. Those were groundwater ingestion and vapour intrusion. We know that there are other ways that the community could be exposed to risks.
If those studies had been designed to consider a broader suite of potential exposure pathways, is it likely that they would have shown risk to the community? Perhaps another way to put that is that if the site use changed to a place where the community gathers plants and swims—if that was the site use, not a commercial use—would the risk to human health be different?