I'm sure that inadvertently Mr. Moffet has mis-characterized this amendment as requiring a pollution prevention plan for every substance.
As I mentioned, if you look at proposed subsection 56(13) at page 47 of your amendment package, you see the applicant may have the opportunity to convince the minister that socio-economic benefits of an activity outweigh the risks and the analysis of alternatives. There are ways to continue to deal with each substance. This amendment isn't a flat prohibition, but it does give the minister tools that currently are not found in this act and the duty to regulate when substances are extremely dangerous.