Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. MacKay and Mr. Kisilkoski, for being here today.
You don't argue that these pesticides and fertilizers are potentially dangerous and need some protection. This can't be something totally new, although 9/11 and other developments may have accelerated the concern. But if you look at dangerous goods and decals, it seems to me that once they're identified as dangerous goods, a transport truck would need to have that information. I presume it's just more information, and more products that would have to be covered.
I suspect, from the stories I've read about bombs, that a lot of people just go out and buy fertilizer. I don't know what the experience has been in Canada with fertilizers being stolen and used for an inappropriate purposes, or pesticides being stolen and used for illegal purposes, but notwithstanding all that, I think it's appropriate that we protect these products.
In your brief you talk about the impact assessment written by Environment Canada. Now there's an interesting group to write an impact assessment on business--another department that's involved. They say the regulatory change would have minimal or negligible impact on the international competitiveness of Canadian firms or sectors producing or using the substances. What we've heard today seems to be totally contrary to that.
The Liberal government had a smart regulatory environment initiative. This government wants to be smarter with regulations. At the same time, these things are gazetted. Can you tell me when this was gazetted and whether you responded? Did you see the analysis that was done by Environment Canada? If it was gazetted, did you have the chance to respond, critique, and attack their brief? What was the timing on that?