House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 49% of the vote.
The Environment November 27th, 2007
Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Nobody believes him.
Because of the Prime Minister's shameful behaviour at the Commonwealth conference, Canada is being shunned by the rest of the world. The Australians kicked out John Howard for refusing to support the Kyoto protocol. Only the White House is still in the Prime Minister's camp. He would like us to stay in this two-member club against 190 countries.
Why is the Prime Minister always the only one who is right?
The Environment November 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, what we saw from the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Summit gives all Canadians great concern. His my way or the highway approach to international relations is not what Canadians expect from their Prime Minister.
We can no longer afford to make aspirational statements. We need binding international commitments. We should be doing everything we can to get all countries on board, including China, including India, by aiming higher by reaching for the top, not racing to the bottom.
What can we expect from the Prime Minister in Bali? The same shameful and disreputable tactics used in Uganda?
The Environment November 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, for the minister's benefit, leadership means leading the world to do more, not less.
Since the government took office, we have seen backsliding at home and backstabbing on the international stage. From Bonn to Nairobi and New York to Kampala, the government has tirelessly led the world in abandoning Kyoto commitments. Now it looks like the knives are out for Bali.
The planet is in trouble and it needs binding targets now, not in 2010. Does the government not realize that this is the way to lead China and India to do the same?
The Environment November 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, for a decade the Prime Minister has showcased his various positions to raise money and rally support to stop any meaningful action on climate change.
First he denounced the science. He called Kyoto a money-sucking socialist scheme. He claimed it would cause economic ruin and called it the worst international agreement that Canada has ever signed.
Now he stands alone, a pariah, a one-man wrecking crew singled out as the roadblock to international progress. Why does he insist on isolating Canada as the sole obstacle in the entire Commonwealth? Just what exactly is he aspiring to?
The Environment November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the government's tradition for the past 15 years has been to reach out to industry and non-governmental stakeholders, inviting them to take part in Canadian delegations to the UN. Canada has always favoured cooperation and mutual aid. However, this government is now suppressing all opposing views.
Given that the next Australian government will ratify the Kyoto protocol, what secret agreement does the government intend to negotiate with the Republicans in the United States, the only partner it has left?
The Environment November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 15 years, the Minister of the Environment has told industry associations, environmental NGOs, labour groups and opposition critics that they have been kicked off the official Canadian delegation 10 days before the start of United Nations climate change meetings in Indonesia.
Is this because six independent research groups have concluded that the government's climate change plan and targets are a farce and that nobody believes them? Or is it because the minister has no plan for Bali, has now isolated Canada in these negotiations and is desperately trying to hide these facts from everyday Canadians?
Afghanistan November 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to take a leadership role in this issue, not take a page out of the Republican handbook when it comes to the use of torture.
These are specific allegations that the government is specifically choosing to ignore. The Prime Minister likes to cite the existence of an agreement, but he surely cannot be satisfied that the matter is therefore closed.
Allegations of torture continue. Despite the agreement, is the minister not concerned about the mounting specific cases of torture? Or is he content to sit idly by as more detainees are tortured?
Afghanistan November 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday about another specific case of torture involving a prisoner in Afghanistan. Let us be clear: this is torture.
Canada has a responsibility to take these allegations seriously. When will Canada show some leadership? When will it stop transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities? When will it make it clear, once and for all, that torture is simply unacceptable?
Silver Cross Mothers November 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, next week, Canadians will mark Remembrance Day. We will remember those who made the supreme sacrifice, and we will also remember the mothers of those who lost their lives in the service of their country.
This year's Silver Cross Mother is Wilhelmina Beerenfenger-Koehler of Embrun, Ontario. Mrs. Beerenfenger-Koehler will lay a wreath of flowers at the National War Memorial on behalf of all mothers who children died while serving in the Canadian Forces or the merchant marine.
She will no doubt be thinking of her son Robbie, who was killed on October 2, 2003 while on patrol near Kabul, Afghanistan. Our thoughts are with her.
The role of Silver Cross Mother is an honour, but also a burden.
On behalf of my friends in all the parties in this House, I express our sincere condolences and our eternal gratitude to Mrs. Beerenfenger-Koehler and all the mothers who share her burden.
Phthalate Control Act November 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary's closing remarks, I share his concern. I share his profound conviction that we are doing good around the world, but it is also important to remind his colleagues in his own caucus that it is very important that as we build the rule of law and democratic traditions and structures in countries like Afghanistan that we work very feverishly here in this country never to undermine them.
I am speaking today about the merits of Bill C-307, Phthalate Control Act. I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his ongoing contribution to the toxins debate in Canada, particularly with regard to phthalates.
The bill before us has been carefully examined in committee and the Liberal Party and its members have played some important role in facilitating the successful outcome of our discussions.
On background, first let us look at the bill. It deals with three major chemical compounds, part of a large group of chemicals known as phthalates. The three phthalates that were examined under this bill are DEHP, BBP and DBP. What are they? For average Canadians who are watching or reading, they are plasticizers. They are substances that enhance flexibility in plastic compounds. They are used in thousands of products, from children's toys to medical devices to cosmetics.
Studies have linked certain phthalates to infertility and other health issues. However, the three phthalates considered in this bill have been evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the past. One of the substances of the three, DEHP, was in fact designated toxic through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
We heard extensive testimony in committee that not all types of exposure were in fact evaluated by the federal government studies when looking at the other two phthalates. The proposed bill calls for a more comprehensive reassessment that shall include exposure through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics. This would help ensure the assessment of the cumulative effects of those phthalates on humans.
Something, which we are just beginning to grapple with in the scientific community and that is, for anyone listening or reading, it is really a question of whether or not we are able to measure a multiplicity of exposures of these compounds themselves or how these compounds interact with other compounds that are in our environment at large here in Canada, the cumulative effects of all of these things combined.
As I mentioned earlier, phthalates are found in thousands of products in our environment: toys and medical devices, cosmetics, but also basics, such as shower curtains or the vinyl that we find in vinyl products or the vinyl dashboard in cars, for example. We are again concerned by the multiple exposure to phthalates which perhaps, in isolation, may not have the impact that we fear on human health, but in combination can be particularly toxic. These repeated exposures could be enough to cause harm.
Both speakers who have preceded me have spoken about the precautionary principle which underlies Bill C-307, and they were right in giving it the attention they did. It calls for the introduction by government of cost effective measures to prevent serious or irreversible damage even if we do not have full scientific certainty.
We know that certain other countries, as my colleague from the NDP has mentioned, including the whole European Union, have tighter restrictions on chemicals such as phthalates than Canada does. However, it is also fair to say that when Bill C-307 arrived at committee last March, all members were in favour of closer scrutiny of these compounds but, to be perfectly frank and honest about it, the bill was in an unworkable, unacceptable and, frankly, very unrealistic form.
As I stressed in committee, we need to achieve what the French would call le juste milieu to deal effectively with phthalates, the right balance between the reflection of health and safety and reasonable demands on industry, while facilitating products which are important and useful for our citizens, and ultimately moving to implement tighter restrictions on these risky compounds.
As it was originally drafted, the bill would have banned the three phthalates completely in commonly used applications but government members, as they are want to do, balked in committee, proposing instead to rewrite the bill in its entirety, or worse, throw it out not seeing beyond its face value. I think it is fair to say that the five Liberal members on the environment committee were instrumental in reconciling the two parties that were embroiled in a spat and then helped broker a compromise so the bill would not die in committee.
I had two central concerns to ensure the bill stayed alive. First, I wanted to ensure that it maintained the science based process that exists in the current legislation. We do not invent legislation here that is not science based. That is not the Canadian way.
Parliament needs to respond from time to time to concerns that are raised, as we did by holding hearings on these very compounds, but scientists and the scientific method are best qualified to provide the final recommendation to the minister about what applications are safe based on current research.
Second, the outright ban would have caused users of phthalate products, including hospitals, to scramble to find substitute products that may or may not work as well as the current ones. This we did hear in testimony objectively from witnesses.
We are not in a situation to recommend to Canadian health care providers that they ought not to be using products that play an indispensable role in health care. Risks need to be balanced. Banning a breathing tube, as the NDP sought in its first draft, because it might potentially have a long term hormonal effect, may in fact have a very immediate impact on a patient's survival.
Again, a science based approach that balances these risks is preferable to a political solution on the one hand emanating from the NDP, which is, in some respects, to frighten Canadians about these products, whereas the Conservative Party would have thrown the bill out at first blush for its own political purposes as well.
The amended version of the bill was supported by all five Liberal MPs and ultimately passed in committee. When the bill gets royal assent, it will require that the chemicals in question are reviewed again with the provision that they will be banned from certain applications if they are found to be toxic.
As my colleagues pointed out earlier, substitutes are already available for many of these products. Bill C-307, as it is drafted now, would encourage research into safer alternatives for a greater number of products, including, of course, medical devices, rather than an unrealistic first off approach found in the first version of the bill, which sought an outright and immediate ban on the use of these products.
Bill C-307 does show that from time to time we can cooperate effectively at committee, usually when the lights are dimmed and the cameras are off, and we can achieve a good outcome as this is.
The official opposition will be supporting the adoption of Bill C-307.