Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-11 of 11
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Environment committee  Thanks for the question. I think we'd agree with the member that in the way the bill is phrased at the moment, it's a bit of a blunt tool. We need to take some serious action. We need to take serious action now—we've been waiting years—on DEHP-containing medical devices. We need

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  I'm trying to remember all the different parts of it. I think we understand, to take the last thing first, the idea that there isn't enough testing and alternatives. We are recommending that there be a process to look at alternatives in terms of where there are safe substitutio

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  It's a complicated question, only because there are so many types of plastics. There's what we call the plastics pyramid, where polyvinyl chloride—PVC—and polycarbonate plastics are considered the worst ones. So if you're seeing a three or a seven, that's where you're worried abo

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  Thank you for the opportunity to speak again. It's a complicated bill, so I'll try to move through it quickly. The committee has already heard about the health effects of these three phthalates; they are developmental and reproductive toxins, according to the national toxicology

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  As you say, I don't have the clear answer on whether the exemptions for the chrome-plating and electroplating sectors are rational. There's a contradiction internationally, where the U.S. originally did not exempt it and is considering exempting it now; the EU is considering exem

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  Well, I'm not sure that we've proposed any amendments as to how to change it. I think we're pretty happy with it the way it is. We understand there will be a statutory requirement for the moment, if you put it on the virtual elimination list, to look at the level of quantificatio

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  Again, I think the prohibition does well. We do need to follow the path that we've decided in Canada of virtually eliminating substances that are persistent, biocumulative, and inherently toxic, and virtual elimination will allow us to move toward zero emissions in Canada. In pa

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  Yes, that's part of what it would do.

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  Thanks for the question, Chair. To respond to the first part of the question, which was actually more for Mr. Moffet, part of what we've been concerned about and we've spoken at length about at the CEPA review is the lack of timelines that occur in terms of getting substances on

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Environment committee  Thank you, Chair, committee members. We don't have much time, so we'll be brief. We're talking today about Bill C-298, which is a bill to virtually eliminate perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act says that any toxic substance that is mo

March 20th, 2007Committee meeting

Dr. Kapil Khatter