Praising The Conservatives, But...

Partisanship aside, you have to give the government full marks for its plan to deal with toxic chemicals. The plan has teeth, ample funding and clear, immediate goals. I have yet to hear much in the way of criticism, and approval seems to be coming from all quarters:

"We were very pleased with the announcement," Aaron Freeman, an activist and lawyer with Environmental Defence.

"We think it's a very important step in dealing with some of the most substances that are in our environment, and that pose a threat to the environment and our own health."

More:

Rick Smith, who heads the Canadian advocacy group Environmental Defence, applauds the government's plan. He said the chemicals it targets are highly toxic and cause cancer, and are dangerous for the development of children.

"This announcement is long over due, frankly," he told CBC News. "It's a great step to bring us up to the level of the kind of programs we're already seeing around the world.

"This is a significant step forward for pollution reduction in Canada."

And:

Beaming environmentalists said the government is working hard to renew its environmental credentials after the poor reception given its climate policies.

"It's probably a good thing they got pasted on the Clean Air Act," said Ken Ogilvie, executive director of Pollution Probe. "This is their opportunity to do something significant."

Ken Kyle of the Canadian Cancer Society called it a good day for public health.

"No Canadian should be exposed to cancer-causing substances. It's a comprehensive plan, more money is being put into it, and the chemicals will be evaluated a lot quicker."

You can split hairs about when the process started, but it is really irrelevant. On this issue, the government has delivered and it's good news for all of us.

I saw an interview with Tony Clement on CTV and he made the following comments:

"ultimately its regulatory, we say to industry prove to us that this chemical can be used safely."

"work with us, within in six months, if you don't come up with the answers then we enter the regulatory phase"

"the punishment is you can't sell your product"

"there is something in it for them, because if they can find replacements the become world leaders. If they can produce products that will be available throughout the world, this is a plus for Canadian industry, making us more competitive than other jurisdictions"

These type of comments force me to jump off the feel good bus, because I can't help but extrapolate this attitude onto the approach to global warming. Doesn't the last sentence strangely mimic Dion's idea of sustainability? Clement frames regulation as the impetus to give Canada a "technological" edge, and with that economic advantage. I don't understand why the logic differs on climate change.

Clement also speaks of a quick process to deal with the most heinous toxins, a mere six months. The background consultations have ended, and now we move to the regulatory phase. Does anyone deny that government and industry have consulted for years on emissions, and the problems well known? Why can't we set firm deadlines, in the near term on emissions? There is a tension in Clement's philosophy on toxins and the government's lack of teeth on emissions. How many times have we heard the apologists say we will kill our economy if we comply with Kyoto? Clement doesn't seem to have a problem threatening industry into action.

In conclusion, high praise to the Conservatives for delivering on this file, not so much on the lack of consistency.