Environment committee  I would support what Justyna said. I think if we got into another review that was as fundamental as the CEPA 1999 review, we would be into a process of continuing review, which would hang up implementation.There are also resources in the department that get swept into that kind o

Environment committee  I don't really know. I don't think very many have, and I have found that confusing.

Environment committee  I don't think it should be perplexing that new chemicals aren't on the virtual elimination list. I think it would be very surprising if a new chemical were on the virtual elimination list.

Environment committee  The fact that we are a signatory to the POPs treaty and it has 12 chemicals that are in the same kind of ballpark is a question worth asking of Environment Canada--why those aren't on the list. But I can't answer that.

Environment committee  I participated personally in the development of the POPs treaty, and industry certainly had no objections to any of those chemicals being listed in the POPs treaty. As I said in my brief, there's an element of practicality in the POPs treaty. You don't have to worry about trace c

Environment committee  Yes, I think that would be worth looking at more in depth. My understanding of the way the equivalency provisions in section 10 are written is that the provincial governments basically have to do things the same way as the federal government to get recognized. I don't think tha

Environment committee  Substances that meet the criteria of section 64.

Environment committee  There's what I would call a networking group, which goes by the odd name of CEPA brainstorming group, where we try to share views among industry groups and let each other know what we're doing, what we think. There's an awful lot of commonality because we all have common interest

Environment committee  The act is good and bad. One of the problems with the act is it's complicated. But I don't know how you get around that. I think it would be nice if we could have an act that is less complicated, but I think that's a wish that won't be fulfilled. Another area in the act that I

Environment committee  No. I would recommend a deep review on that particular area, on whether the equivalency provisions are adequate. But I think you should have a focused review on seven or eight things.

Environment committee  From our industry's perspective, a couple of the areas we pointed to where we would like to see improvements actually do relate specifically to where we find the act either restrictive or wasteful. On the idea that, like Australia, we have an ability to recognize and adopt assess

Environment committee  I think the only thing I would add is that the term “toxic” is a loaded term. When the public, and also people in companies that purchase from other companies, see the term “toxic”, it has a really negative connotation, and they think toxic equals banned. Some things on schedule

Environment committee  I think I tried to be very specific in the brief we sent on the very few issues that we see are essential to fix in a focused review. I'll very briefly summarize. On the stigma issue, take the word “toxic” out of the act. On the climate change issue, do not regulate greenhouse

Environment committee  I think that unless the committee specifically nails down the areas it wants to look at, you will probably open yourself up to the same kind of free-for-all that happened last time. I think that review itself took almost five years. If you don't want to do that, then I think you

Environment committee  In the more detailed submission that we sent to the predecessor of this committee, we actually addressed that issue. I think you were all given a copy. The point we made was that we strongly relied on the assurances by government lawyers, which I believe have been given to this