Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for coming.
I'm struggling with parts of the bill and I'll tell you why. The last bill lasted for many years, and there is the opportunity for this one to last for many years. I think we have the opportunity to do something that will protect the health of Canadians.
Mr. Glover, you mentioned there are three pillars of the bill, including active prevention.
We all know that Canadians have heavy metals, pesticides, toxic chemicals in their bodies. The Canadian Cancer Society says that if we can reduce some of those chemicals, we will reduce cancers.
If the focus is on active prevention, why doesn't the bill phase out or ban known carcinogens and other toxic chemicals in consumer products? Ontario is requiring big companies, just in the last month, to track and report on their use of toxic chemicals and to develop plans to ban them.
The second question is regarding the fact that you mention prohibition. In talking about prohibition, how do you define “unreasonable” in regard to health and safety, and wouldn't carcinogenic qualify?
Third, I know that the bill talks about mandatory reporting, and this, of course, is a good thing, yet we're not asking for a labelling scheme. You say there are comparisons with what's happening in the U.S. and the EU, and I agree. I think those are good things. But in California, for example, a product that contains a known or suspected carcinogen has to have a warning label.
I'm wondering if you could address those, please.