Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll be sharing my ten minutes with Mr. Harvey.
I would like to focus on the burden of proof, but I would first like to start off by addressing some of the comments that were made by the witnesses.
Thank you for being here today.
This is relevant, in that Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, proposes amendments to support third party auditing of information before submission, thereby enhancing the authority for the Minister of the Environment to utilize this information for the purpose of maintaining a national pollutant release inventory, NPRI, with a reliable baseline level of information on releases of substances.
It also proposes to extend the current authorities under section 71 of CEPA 1999 to the Minister of Health in order to improve the efficiency of using these authorities. These authorities allow for the collection of information and the requirement to conduct tests in order to determine if a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic. I think that's very good news.
I have a question regarding the burden of proof. I would like to hear some discussion, and I'd ask you to keep your answers short.
Regarding the burden of proof, which is more effective, industry or the government? Where should the burden of proof lie? Which is the more cautious? What are the pros and cons of each method? Could you comment on that?
Ms. Coombs said she believes it's a shared responsibility between industry and the government. I believe Ms. Ginsburg said industry should be responsible and should demonstrate the safety of the substance first.
Could all the witnesses provide comments on the pros and cons of both? What are your recommendations?