Mr. Moffet is of course correct that the strict legal requirement of the legislation is to conduct the exercise and complete it. However, this has been a seven-year exercise. There's been no shortage of notice that this was to be completed. These substances are twenty and more years old. They've been on that list...or at least that's the definition of the list.
It's interesting to note that it was this committee that amended the requirement in the legislation to put a timeline on it. So we would not have had this seven-year deadline had this committee not placed one. That reinforces the need for mandatory statutory language so these things are met.
On the fact that it's available and being distributed, clearly there have been some difficulties getting it, but in some ways this is extremely complex information. In addition to the regulatory obligations and some action that we're pushing for, we need to see the government take on its role of education and public awareness on these substances and the effects they may have. The prevailing approach is some version of public choice, which I think is unacceptable because people don't have even the basic tools to know what the risks might be.
Finally, we can only cheer and reinforce Mr. Bigras' request for an action plan.