I'm glad to be able to comment on that, because one of the things I was a bit concerned about was Mr. Freeman's characterization of international treaties and approaches in other countries as being consistent with Canada's. In my view, that's just incorrect. We have a very unique approach in Canada in terms of how we use the term “toxic” and the specific meaning that it's being given by section 64. We always have to explain ourselves and what we mean when we are in other international forums. The Stockholm Convention, which I was very much involved in--and I don't have my computer to do a word search through it--is not founded on the term “toxic”. That's just not true. The same is the case for the Rio declaration. If you take the language that I read to you out of my submission, which is before you--it was in the Dubai declaration and was also in the summit that came out of Johannesburg in 2000--similarly, the term isn't used there.
So we have a uniquely Canadian term. I think if we change things, contrary to Mr. Freeman's view, we will actually be more consistent with what others are doing globally. The domestic point is a good one. Are we putting our CEPA legislation in jeopardy? Industry has provided a number of examples here before of how there is stigma, and there are problems attached to the current term, and we put that in the balance. CCPA has said that's a problem, and we don't want to lose the constitutional validity of the federal legislation. We're relying on the federal lawyers who came to that conclusion when they proposed the language I suggested in the budget bill in the last government. The committee might want to ask some of those federal lawyers for their view. I've read the PCB decision as well.
My view--and I think I'm consistent with Mr. Freeman there--is that I do not think that this kind of change would result in the constitutional validity of the federal powers being lost. But, like him, I would not want to say that's absolutely true. I can't give you an unequivocal opinion. I do think you should possibly look at getting some of the federal lawyers who would have gone through that in some detail to come and talk to you on it.