Evidence of meeting #26 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
How did you overcome that? How did you overcome the challenge? How did you succeed in preventing that door from closing?
President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute
We and a few members of Parliament and a number of executives and scientists in my industry dedicated a huge amount of effort and time to try to explain to them that essentially the Canadian government didn't know what it was doing.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Let me just get this straight. They said “Our people are afraid because your potash has been declared toxic--under Canada's own definition.”
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
“So we're not going to import this any more. But you've explained it to us, the leaders of industry and government. Therefore, we don't believe the consumer will be afraid any more.”
President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute
We've spent a lot of time explaining the system and the legislation that was used in Canada to the Japanese government and the fact that while Environment Canada did declare road salts to be CEPA-toxic, the Governor in Council refused to add it to schedule 1.
At this point in time, we have been able to maintain a level of confidence in Japan in our products. I would say we are pretty confident that we will be able to maintain that level of confidence into the future.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
You talked a lot about the case of road salt. Do you think it's representative, in terms of being a business case to be used for challenging CEPA, specifically its toxic labelling? Or is it a very simple case compared to many of the others that CEPA deals with?
I don't know if you understand my question.
President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute
I'm not sure. Maybe I'll try to answer it this way. The Deputy Minister of Environment appeared before this committee about a year and a half ago and stated that the use of the word “toxic” to describe substances such as ammonia and road salt was inappropriate and that there were better solutions, where substances--
November 20th, 2006 / 5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Is there a way around this? Is there a compromise solution, where we won't be hindering more benign substances but we could still have a CEPA-toxic label for everything--
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Godfrey
Let me interrupt. I notice that Ms. Ginsburg has been trying to get in. We're also out of time.
Let me give you the last word, if you would like to answer that question.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
There are two things. First, as we are out of time, I just want to mention that we do have a full submission, which is currently being translated. It will be available to you within a day or two. Second, the concern from industry is that their substances will be “stigmatized”, which I think is their term, by the use of the word “toxic”. This term is not arbitrarily applied. It is applied following a rigorous assessment. Often there is due reason for concern.
I would close on that note.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Godfrey
Thank you very much. We are on time.
Thank you, everybody. Thank you, witnesses, for coming.
We'll see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock in the same room.
The meeting is adjourned.