Environment committee  I think the short answer is no.

Environment committee  Sorry, I'm not familiar with that. We've done pretty extensive analysis around this wood stove and jerry can issue. We've looked for ways and haven't found them. You may have identified one, and we'll look into it.

Environment committee  No, sorry. Part 4 allows the minister to require various entities—companies, institutions—to develop pollution prevention plans with respect to designated substances. The minister could require entities to do a GHG reduction plan.

Environment committee  I'll try to respond briefly, but I might suggest that if there is interest on the part of the committee in enforcement, that you might want to invite the chief enforcement officer to come and explain. Very briefly, however, within Environment and Climate Change Canada, we distin

Environment committee  Pollution prevention plans are one tool that we use. We don't use them in all cases. There are numerous factors that go into deciding what kind of tool, including the seriousness of the issue. So, if you get it wrong, can you remedy the issue, or do you need to get it right in

Environment committee  Under the toxic authorities in CEPA, we do not; under other authorities, under other statutes, perhaps. Now, under vehicles, fuels, and engines, yes, we can do that kind of thing, but for vehicles, fuels, and engines. All I'm saying is that if there are toxic substances, includ

Environment committee  The trading systems in which auctioning is most prevalent are indeed greenhouse gas variants of cap and trade. When a government establishes a cap and trade system, you have to decide who gets permits and how to issue the permits. Do you issue them for free, sell them for a fixed

Environment committee  No, I think what I was trying to explain is that my colleague and I cannot tell you why a decision was made. We would be very happy to provide you with a table of all the recommendations and the way in which the government responded to those recommendations. If you see that no re

Environment committee  I'll follow up, absolutely.

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  The challenges with fulfilling the specific legal obligations with respect to substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic remain. The statute hasn't been amended. However, numerous substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic h

Environment committee  Yes. Let me explain two things. First of all, the process is quite different for new substances versus existing substances. For new substances, you can't use the substance until you give us information that allows us to make a determination. We make the final determination, but

Environment committee  No, the system we use is quite different from REACH.

Environment committee  REACH is an extremely time-consuming process that requires extensive work on the part of users and producers, but that actually has achieved a lot fewer decisions than we've achieved under the chemicals management plan.

Environment committee  Another couple of examples; I'm an extremely uncreative person. I'm sure we can give you more examples, but I don't have any off the top of my head. I apologize.