Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the latitude.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove the exemption, which would mean it would revert to absolute liability. I can be corrected, but that's how I understand it would work.
The reality is that the science around the dispersant agents is still evolving. By creating the carve-out exemption in Bill C-22 as is currently being proposed, there'd be no effective pressure on manufacturers to consider that the spill-dispersant agent they're using could have a negative impact. It could be even more of a disaster than the spill they're trying to clean up. By maintaining that they're not exempt from environmental damage, there will be more pressure to ensure that spill-dispersant agents are both effective in dealing with a spill and don't become yet another source of problems.
The classic example is what happened with a spill-dispersant agent used after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of the spill-dispersant agents themselves contributed to long-lasting negative environmental impacts.