Sure.
It's apparent to me, from Mr. Graham's presentation, that words actually carry tremendous value, certainly for him and also for other stakeholders in this process.
The term “toxic” fits into an overall regime that deals with harmful substances. If you take that label off and call it something else, for one thing it's dishonest. More importantly, you are now creating confusion at a regulatory level, at an administrative level, and at a public communication level in terms of exactly what it is you're doing and how it fits in with other domestic programs that deal with things that we call toxics and also with international agreements and programs that deal with things that we call toxics. It does create a whole series of problems in terms of how we deal with these things.
I would suggest that none of the substances we've talked about are in fact toxic; they are toxic in particular contexts. Ammonia is toxic in an aquatic environment, in various conditions, but that's not to say that ammonia is toxic every time, all of the time, and regardless of the application.
To me, the solution here is effective communication of what it is you're doing with the substance. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I don't think most Canadians view a fertilizer as a toxin.
Over and above that, when Mr. Graham complains that the onus is on industry, I think that's quite appropriate when you're dealing with a substance that is toxic in certain contexts. I think the answer to that is effectively communicating what that substance is and what you're doing with it, and effectively and efficiently administering the regulatory regime.