Environment committee  I was only saying that I don't understand. I'm also recalling that I think the last time we only met a couple of times; it was just to set the course, because we were dealing with such a big topic, and it will likely be similar this time. We dealt with climate change last time

Environment committee   that are building up in our bodies; greenhouse gases that can lead to climate change; metals like mercury that are contaminating our fish, our wildlife, and ourselves. CEPA gives the federal government the powers to regulate any chemical, air pollutant, or greenhouse gas deemed to be endangering

Environment committee  I know you're being delicate, but I need to understand it a little better, because the challenge that we have, again, is that.... When we were reviewing climate change the last time--and committee members who were here will remember--official after official from the department

Environment committee  If you want to tackle climate change, smog--with its asthma--and the host of other pollutants, like mercury, we need cleaner power production, and CEPA doesn't deal with that explicitly. That doesn't really answer your question in a fair way, but in a practical way, if CEPA

Environment committee   the whole issue of climate change, and so on. I would ask you to give consideration to attending those meetings, and we'll see that the members who aren't here get those invitations as well. Anyway, I'd like to welcome our guests. For your benefit, if you didn't know exactly where we

Environment committee   of CEPA, to manage climate change. In our view, other parts of CEPA could be used outside of part 5, such as the international air pollution provisions, or possibly the clean air initiative announced by the new government. We see greenhouse gases as a staple of life, and we just

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   into working with the provinces as we deal with climate change and/or clean air, if that's done under this legislation, the problems in the equivalency provisions in the legislation will start to cause great restrictions. The kind of thing that Justyna was talking about will really start

Environment committee   on. I'm looking at your brief, Mr. Lloyd, and you provided seven points here. The first deals with the management of climate change. Then you dealt with the term “toxic” and the stigma it carries, the requirement to establish so-called “limits of quantification”, state

Environment committee  On your first question, I did address that a bit while you were out, but briefly, we think that cooperation with the provinces is going to become more and more important on issues like climate change and clean air. We'll need to make sure there are provisions in the equivalency

Environment committee   will have an update. To tell you the truth, it was planned so as to be done this year, but we decided 18 months ago to focus on climate change, so the upcoming report will be on climate change; in the next one we'll do a wrap-up of some of the key issues we looked at in the past.

Environment committee   question period and our inability to receive answers to questions that are significant to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, with respect to climate change in particular, but other issues in general. At the base of this argument is a basic accountability that we

Environment committee  The salient point is that the Government of Canada does not have the authority to dismiss ministers; the Prime Minister has that authority. That's the fundamental reason why this is out of order and also why I believe it's political mischief. The member did say that climate

Environment committee   it with climate change. The cause and effect relationships in toxicology are much more complicated and the issues are much more individual, and therefore the manufacture of doubt is a much more lucrative industry and much easier to pursue. I want to give an example of the kinds of things we

Environment committee  Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague. I think that in this particular instance, the Committee should focus more, and with more rigour than in the past, on the Estimates. For political reasons, as you may recall, Mr. Flaherty's last budget set aside some $2 billion for climate