Environment committee  It's a topic I'm so passionate about. Members of the committee, I think, would benefit from looking at REACH. It's been mentioned once in Bob's comments, but there are few principles in REACH that are—

Environment committee  It's a funny thing. Environmental Defence Canada never dismissed it harshly. I think there are a few key principles in REACH that are really great, such as no data, no market. You provide the data before the substance is in wide use. There is also a system that allows industry to

Environment committee  I actually think it's a little more complex, because listing something as toxic under schedule 1 doesn't necessarily mean it will be banned, as we have seen. You can list it on schedule 1 with a more cautious, hazard-based approach, and still have risk management that takes in in

Environment committee  Even with the cautious scope we have now, we see that many of these substances remain in wide use. We can improve risk management greatly and expand the definition of toxic without harming industry.

Environment committee  Part of it comes down to education and responsible communication around toxic substances, and the message is that we need to reduce our exposure. It's not 95% of products made of chemicals, it's 100%, because everything is made of chemical material. It's about reducing exposure

Environment committee  In terms of how “toxic” is defined under the act, I believe it's section 5. We need to revisit that bit about it “entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration”, or under conditions that may have long-term and harmful effects. We need to revisit that ques

Environment committee  I think it was taken out of baby bottles in 2010.

Environment committee  Yes, and hence in our bodies. As I mentioned, the Canadian health measures survey from Statistics Canada found that it's in I think 90% or 94% of Canadians aged 3 to 79, which is too much. Last year, researchers in France found that the levels we thought might be safe threshold

Environment committee  It's not being followed consistently. It's not being followed adequately. There are great examples of where it is being upheld, but with what's written down and what's practised, there's a gap there that we need to close so that it can be more consistent.

Environment committee  I think that when risk assessments are done on substances sometimes...triclosan is a good example, because it's one I know well. It was declared toxic to the environment in a draft decision, but it wasn't declared toxic to human health. We have seen a great deal of evidence that

Environment committee  We've heard alternatives assessment mentioned. I think expanding that, and not making that voluntary; but looking at how we can put alternatives assessment as a strong program under CEPA so that companies go through the process. They know it's happening voluntarily. It's fantasti

Environment committee  What's interesting about these light bulbs is that if they're used safely, they're safe. The mercury shouldn't get out unless they break or are disposed of improperly—

Environment committee  Yes, in the landfill. The problem is that very few people know—I know, because I'm passionate about these issues—that you're supposed to dispose of them as toxic waste. I want to indicate that it's what happens when there's a reluctance to regulate or legislate at the federal lev

Environment committee  Yes. If you follow some of the interviews that followed the decision to bring in these light bulbs, there is some finger pointing in regard to “well, the provinces should do it” and whatnot. In looking back at some of the articles about it, you can trace inter-jurisdictional fing

Environment committee  Yes, definitely.