Thank you. I think we've had a really robust conversation.
I want to sum it up a little bit before I ask my question. I think we're hearing that everyone—and we've had other meetings on this as well—agrees that plastic waste and improper disposal is an issue. I think we can pretty well agree that there are times when feasible alternatives can be used and that we're learning more and more. There are new products, as we heard from Madame Boudreault, being developed and that will be very appropriate.
We also have heard that right now, and for the foreseeable future, plastic will at times be the only solution, and we've heard that recycling and a circular economy are important. The volume issue that was raised by Mr. St-Hilaire was interesting, because if we diminish our use to a degree, we might impact our ability to have that circular economy.
Where I'm hearing a disagreement is around the labelling of “toxic”, and we can maybe talk about my other points later. Mr. Bittle talked about it being a simple definition. I did note Professor Curran's explanation of the definition, but I can tell you what the public think. When the public hears something labelled as toxic, all of a sudden when that plastic IV bottle goes up or my meat is wrapped in plastic, the definition is no longer simple. It is a perception among the public of significant harm that would be caused to them by virtue of that label. I would say that there might be a few people on the environment committee, and others, who understand what the definition is, but the general public have an understanding of toxic as a certain thing and it will create fear. I think it is a justified comment.
Mr. Burt, first of all, does that reflect your thinking about the labelling, or am I off base there?