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

Results 1-7 of 7
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Environment committee  The structure of the act is such that it requires risk assessment first, before actions are taken. There is a conclusion of harm, or toxicity in this case, under the section 64 definition of “toxic substances”. What I'm recommending--and you might be able to do this simply with

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter

Environment committee  Thank you, Chairman. The Salt Institute has been pleased to be part of this important debate on the review of CEPA. We've attempted to frame our recommendations around a number of public interest themes as follows. First, CEPA is the cornerstone of Canada's environmental legis

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter

Environment committee  I would just say that I do see a very strong difference between substances that are on the list that in effect can kill humans on contact, and those that are in the air we breathe or are in foods we eat. I think that's the way the public understands it. And I think we run the ris

September 26th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter

Environment committee  I'll just explain the structure of the act, and I'm sure some of the experts here can do it as well or better. Once a risk assessment is complete, and one of the two ministers or both ministers make a recommendation to list, it starts a clock in the act that says you have two yea

September 26th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter

Environment committee  Thank you very much for your question and comments; they really do speak to the complexity of the road salts file. The straight fact is that keeping the roads clear and safe is a provincial jurisdiction, whether it's municipalities that do it or provincial ministries of transport

September 26th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter

Environment committee  Just to clarify, we're not recommending the removal of the word “toxic” at the Salt Institute, we're actually suggesting that there be another definition or another list, which would be easy to implement. I'd also remind you--and Al said it, but it's true--that if no regulations

September 26th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter

Environment committee  I was just going to say that I think it deviates from our debate to get into the issue of smog precursors, because the science on PM10 and PM2.5 is under debate right now. I think the whole issue of whether atmospheric ammonia should be on the list or not is being debated.

September 26th, 2006Committee meeting

Michael Teeter