Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps picking up where Mr. Olivier left off in this discussion of toxicity, it seems from a number of the previous witnesses that there's a real conflation between the way in which CEPA defines “toxic” and more of a health sciences definition of toxicity. I note that currently under CEPA there are a number of products listed under the definition of toxic, such as CO2, heating oil and ozone—products that would not necessarily meet that health sciences definition.
It feels to me, and I want to check this with you, that the plastics industry is reacting to the stigma of the word toxic without looking at the underlying definition in CEPA. We've heard other witnesses talk about the reputational damage that could ensue if the word “toxic” is linked to these products. Have heating oil, CO2 or ozone suffered in the marketplace because of a connection under CEPA to the word “toxic”?