Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Like my colleagues, I want to thank all the officials who are here with us this Friday afternoon.
This is not for anyone in particular, but I would like to go back to my earlier question to the minister.
There is already a consultation on substances that would be included in the animate products of biotechnology, covered in part 6 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That consultation ends on December 5.
I would like to return in particular to the notice of intent on the labelling of toxic substances in certain products. This notice states that “Canadians deserve to know what substances are in the products they purchase and use in their everyday lives, whether at home or at work, especially if these substances can have impacts on the environment or human health.” The public has until January 12 to provide input.
What follows is even more interesting, in my opinion. It states that after the consultation has ended, a strategy will be published on transparency in the supply chain and in the labelling of products containing toxic substances. This strategy will include measures to improve access to information on chemical substances, in the interest of consumers, companies and government. Those measures could include legislation or regulations, as well as voluntary and collaborative measures.
This notice clearly pertains to the bill before us, and our current study of the bill is in addition to the efforts made by the Department of the Environment.
How can we gather public input until January 12 and complete our study of Bill S‑5 in committee before we even see the results of those consultations? Why exactly was that notice published? It seems rather irresponsible to me that the committee has to study Bill S‑5 quickly, when the notice published on October 29 pertains directly to the provisions of the bill. So I would kindly ask you to clarify the process in writing. In my opinion, that would show respect and consideration for all those who have worked on Bill S‑5.
We have heard from witnesses who were in favour of deregulation. Those were people from industry, of course. They were quick to praise CEPA's strengths and to make somewhat erroneous statements about the REACH regulatory process in Europe. I would point out that the generic approach under the REACH regulation in Europe was described in the spring of 2022 by the newspaper Le Monde, roughly translated, as follows:
A major change that will make it possible to impose bans by substance group, without having to demonstrate an unacceptable risk for each substance, as is now the case. [...]
[...] The European Environmental Bureau (EBB), which brings together more than 140 organizations throughout the [European Union], estimates [...] [that between] 4,000 and 7,000 substances should be banned by 2030.
So there is truly an accelerated process to ban substances that could be harmful to health or the environment.
Why is the same approach not taken here, in Canada?