Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We have heard from several witnesses in the last little while who raised their concerns about either keeping or clarifying the word “toxic”. There hasn't been too much—and maybe somebody can clarify this—discussion about whether there's been any sort of financial impact on the industry or any stigmatization of the word “toxic”. It seems to me that the argument tends to centre around the whole theme of clarifying and possible legal challenges as well. However, among today's witnesses we have heard from Professor Collins, who said this is actually not clarifying things, that in fact it might be opening another can of worms, and in fact there also might be legal issues as well and legal challenges.
I've been wondering throughout this whole discussion whether in fact there is any merit to any types of changes to the word “toxic” and the present list that we have. I'm wondering whether in fact it could be actually harming the legislation of CEPA and not helping it. I think it should be the goal of the environment committee to strengthen CEPA, not to weaken it in any way.
Maybe I could have some comments from Professor Collins and maybe some others as well to that discussion.