In terms of the trade-off, there is a question of inconvenience and concern over perception versus the risk to the constitutional basis of parts 5 and 6. To me, that trade-off is pretty clear in terms of which side I would come down on.
In terms of accelerating the process, there are a number of possibilities regarding getting us into the conversation about what to do more quickly. One possibility, which was raised before, is that the decision about whether or not something is toxic is relatively straightforward from a scientific perspective, in terms of where Health Canada and Environment Canada end up. Indeed, the actual territory around whether or not greenhouse gases, ammonia, or even road salt are toxic in terms of their environmental effects is relatively uncontested.
Where the large argument ensued, before substances got to schedule I, was around a whole bunch of risk management issues about whether or not control on a substance would have harmful economic effects and around what sorts of measures were already in place—conversations that really belong in the risk management phase of the process, after we've put something on schedule I. A structure of processes unfolds at that stage; the regulatory policy is invoked in terms of risk management, cost benefit analysis, and consultative requirements.
Of course, one other possibility to get us to that conversation faster would be to allow the ministers of health and the environment to add directly to the list of toxic substances without having to go through cabinet, because clearly one of the sources of delay has been the interventions by other departments, for which certain industries are important client groups that have slowed the process down. It's why road salt isn't on schedule 1 yet, even though from a technical perspective it's pretty straightforward.
The issue is that once it's on schedule 1, what do you do? I agree that's a different conversation, but there are ways we can get to that conversation faster.