I understand the parliamentary secretary's concerns with the speed with which this is happening, and I share some of those concerns. I'm recalling the process we went through with something like phthalates, which were rather limited in terms of their scope, as compared to something that's far-reaching.
I like the amendment that Mr. Scarpaleggia has raised in terms of seeking to phase out, because this is an identified problem with an identified source.
The question I have perhaps, through you, Chair, to Mr. Bigras, is around the question of substitution. There was only anecdotal reference to what this.... This is always the question when you seek to ban or phase out something: what are you seeking to replace it with? I can't recall in the testimony it clearly being demonstrated that there were viable economic substitutes available that were less. If I'm wrong and there was testimony given, then that gives me greater assurance to vote for it. I understand the pressure of the Parliament potentially ending and Mr. Bigras wanting to get this through...but I would hate to have egg on our faces later on if there's something we're glaringly missing here that is pointed out through further evidence.