Environment committee  That's right. You're not going to have all the information—new information, new chemistries, new innovation that we would have here in Canada. We would have to import that or buy it in higher-priced products.

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  Well, you don't want to put a sign up at the border saying, “No innovation in Canada”. That impacts your—

Environment committee  Yes, it's the consumer.

Environment committee  All of the products that are being assessed are in commerce now. There are a whole bunch that are prioritized for assessment under CEPA—under the CMP—so they're presumed to be of concern. That's what we're doing in the CMP. We're engaging with the government on literally hundreds of products for our industry alone.

Environment committee  Yes, we would support it, for sure. We have assessments now that drag on for a long period of time. That creates uncertainty for industry. Having more certainty would be better. We know that there are resource constraints imposed on government. If you look at our sector alone, we've had 23 chemical risk assessments and chemical risk management instruments already published.

Environment committee  That's a lot of work.

Environment committee  I think we trust government. If the government were to continue to honour the CBI system, the confidential business information system as it is in place now, I think that would work well. What we're concerned about is that if you allow more openness, I suppose, sharing that information with competitors—sharing it with some that would decrease competition—would prevent those who do studies and research for even sustainable products from shipping those to Canada, because they would have to disclose information that's confidential.

Environment committee  Sure.

Environment committee  There are 60 amendments. There is the cumulative effects proposal in terms of ensuring that all the cumulative effects are looked at in the assessment of chemicals. There are attempts to do that right now under the framework that exists. The government has the ability to invoke the precautionary principle based on certain parameters, so that framework already exists, and we don't need to really codify any further in the bill.

Environment committee  I'm sorry. I don't understand the premise of the question. Can you repeat it, please?

Environment committee  There will be a lot more.... Right now, we spend about 80% of our time with our staff, looking at chemical assessments and their requirements. We're compelled to provide all of the data requirements that the government imposes on us under the act. What the senators are suggesting we do that could cause....

Environment committee  We had an example of that last week in Europe. In 2021, they came forward with an assessment for TiO2, a substance that has been in place for many years. The industry challenged it. It went to the European Court of Justice and it was overturned last week. That's a substance that's been around and understood, but they moved forward with a category 2 carcinogen designation in the EU, and it was turned down.

Environment committee  I'll go to the heart of what we're doing with respect to labelling. There are a number of acts that seek to have more labelling. When you look at what we're faced with now in terms of labelling, we have the Hazardous Products Act and we have the consumer chemicals and containers regulations that protect consumers from hazards posed by consumer chemical products that are manufactured, imported, sold or advertised in Canada under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. We believe the elected MPs on the ENVI House of Commons committee are best placed to address real concerns in Bill S-5. We also believe government officials are best placed to determine the validity of the proposed amendments, ultimately. What we absolutely do not support are amendments made in haste and without substantive data supporting those amendments, amendments that go beyond the scope of the government's original bill.