It's clearly one of the elements of the act that has probably had the most coverage in the consultation and comments we've had all over the place. The implementation of the act itself, for sure, uses the term “toxic”, as some of you will see in the act--it's used in part 5. We refer to the list of toxic substances, but everybody refers to the toxics.
In reality, that's exactly what it was intended to do. It's clear it has, in some discussions, completely mixed the messages around what it is exactly. One of the things that could be considered through the CEPA review is to have another objective to refer to those substances.
For us, the important thing is the process included in part 5. Everybody at the Parliamentary committee might find that the word or term we give it should be replaced; for us, it's more the principle that we are guided by assessing the risk and making sure we have the right information and the right science before we make a judgment call, so that when we need to make a judgment call, the minister can act.
Don't worry, we're not trying to prevent acting when it's required, but we want to be sure the process is very organized and that by the time we have substances that need more, I would say, presence management--I'm looking for the right expression--management that is a lot more structured, if you want--we are looking at each of the potential releases, we are making sure everything that needs to be regulated is regulated, and we are making sure it will be done under a very strict regime. That, for us, is the important thing.
We agree that the term “toxic” could be misleading in some cases.