Once again, showing the incredible ability of this committee to work together, I appreciate it, folks. I have to go soon.
I have a few questions. I'm not sure any other committee members suspected we'd be dealing with a single word quite so much this session, but here we are on “toxic” again, and it's obviously of importance.
First of all, I have a question for Mr. Winfield and Mr. Bramley. The case is made by the product advocacy groups that the intuitive Canadian will look at the word “toxic” and the examples that Ms. Coombs and Mr. Hamilton raised and say there's a disjunction.
Why would you name something toxic in the common parlance that isn't by any measure what we generally define as the word “toxic”? Why would you say a certain vitamin, or road salt, or the products listed are toxic? Wouldn't simply offering a different definition or a different word enable Canadians to better understand what this is and prevent all those harassing phone calls to Mr. Hamilton about his toxic salt?