This is a single
speech (committee meeting) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (committee meeting) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2006-09-26 10:00:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Mark Winfield",
"fr": ""
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"158484\" data-originallang=\"en\">I would point out that gaseous ammonia is actually on the list of toxic substances as well. It's not just ammonia in an aquatic environment. Indeed, the reason that gaseous ammonia was put on the TSL is that it's a smog precursor. What underlies that is in fact that one of the major sources of smog, the third major source, is what are referred to as area sources--as opposed to smoke stacks and automobile tail pipes--which are essentially the volatilization of various substances from cleaners, paints, and other applications in both household and industrial applications. In fact, in a sense, cumulatively, the effect of ammonia in cleaners and those kinds of things is a potential contributor to smog. It also presents occupational hazards, and that's well documented as well. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"158485\" data-originallang=\"en\">So I'm actually surprised that one would point to ammonia as problematic in this context. I think it actually fits the bill rather tidily on a number of different fronts.</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"158484\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'aimerais signaler que l'ammoniac gazeux figure \u00e9galement sur la liste des substances toxiques. Il ne s'agit pas uniquement de l'ammoniac dans un environnement aquatique. En fait, si on a inscrit l'ammoniac gazeux dans la LST, c'est qu'il s'agit d'un pr\u00e9curseur du smog. Cela tient au fait que l'une des principales sources de smog, la troisi\u00e8me source en importance, correspond \u00e0 ce qu'on appelle des sources zonales -- par opposition aux chemin\u00e9es industrielles et aux tuyaux d'\u00e9chappement des automobiles -- c'est-\u00e0-dire, essentiellement, la volatilisation de diverses substances contenues dans des produits nettoyants, des peintures et d'autres produits industriels et m\u00e9nagers. De fait, d'une certaine fa\u00e7on, l'effet cumulatif de l'ammoniac dans les produits nettoyants risque de contribuer \u00e0 la formation du smog. Il pr\u00e9sente \u00e9galement un risque d'accident du travail, et ce fait est \u00e9galement bien document\u00e9. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"158485\" data-originallang=\"en\">Alors je suis plut\u00f4t surpris qu'on remette en question l'inscription de l'ammoniac dans ce contexte. Je crois qu'il convient plut\u00f4t parfaitement \u00e0 un certain nombre de crit\u00e8res. </p>"
},
"url": "/committees/environment/39-1/14/mark-winfield-4/",
"politician_url": null,
"politician_membership_url": null,
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "1651294",
"document_url": "/committees/environment/39-1/14/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Fenvironment%2F39-1%2F14%2F"
}
}