Mark Warawa

[Business of Supply, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of my colleague across the way. He highlighted from 1993 to 2005, those years which he says shine on the previous Liberal government's record.

During that period of time I was a city councillor and those were tough years. Those were years of cut and slash. Those were years when the federal government downloaded onto local government. We are now seeing the consequences of those mistakes, mistakes where the Liberals cut and cut and cut at the cost of our local citizens. It cost the infrastructure.

We now have a government that is providing a renewal to the infrastructure, working with the provinces and local government to see a renewal and it is called “Building Canada”. A couple of items are highlighted in my mind, such as the Saint John harbour. In my own riding of Langley, I saw first-hand what those cuts from the Liberals cost us. It cost us in health care also. They cut $25 billion from health care.

For years the Liberals were aware of the problems in Saint John harbour. It was under this Conservative government that finally the cleaning up of the harbour was dealt with. Why did the Liberals not participate in that? We have heard a lot of rhetoric from them, but again no action. That is their legacy: rhetoric and no action. Why did they not deal with that?

In my own riding we had a problem with the sewer structure. It was our government that finally funded that. I was pleased to announce $3 million on a $9 million project, one-third, one-third, one-third. Why did the Liberals neglect the infrastructure when they knew it was crumbling?

[The Environment, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what a pathetic question. We now have a government that has turned the corner of 13 long years of Liberal inaction. We have targets of 20% reduction by 2020. We have 60% to 70% reductions by 2050. These are some of the toughest targets in the world.

We need less Liberal lectures and more action on the environment. That is what we are getting from this government.

[The Environment, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, from that member, the Liberal environment critic, after six months of not asking any questions, the first question we heard a week ago was, “Can I please go to Bali?” I would encourage him to stop watching so much of the Travel Channel.

[The Environment, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc well knows that without major targets from all major emitters, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase. My question is why he would support greenhouse gas emissions increasing, which was the Liberal plan. Under the Liberal government we saw a 33% rise above the Kyoto target and that did not work. We now have a government that takes climate change seriously. That member is wrong.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

She was the minister, so there was a huge responsibility on her shoulders. Why did she not do it when she had that opportunity?

However, I would like her to talk about these very dangerous, high risk people who reverse onus would apply to. Why would she not want to see them dealt with appropriately? Why would she want to see them released back into the community with zero consequence, the traditional Liberal hugathon philosophy? Why would she want to see that go on? Why would she not want to get serious about high risk offenders who will reoffend and who will put our communities at risk?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way and a lot of what she said was incorrect. However, I would agree with her principle of being proactive, which is why I personally, in my riding, was involved with a number of announcements focusing on high risk youth.

She was correct in sharing the importance of dealing with the problem proactively, even at the early stages of an individual's life. That is why we have provided, as a government, programs that, unfortunately, the Liberal government ignored for 13 long years. From the comments that the member made, the Liberals knew that it was very necessary to be proactive but they ignored that. In 21 short months, we have accomplished much more than they did over 13 years.

It is very disappointing to hear that she knows what should have been done but it was not done.

I want to focus though--

[Sir James Douglas, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this Monday, November 19, will mark the 149th anniversary of the union of what is now the province of British Columbia.

In 1858 at Fort Langley in my riding, a booming colony on the Pacific was united more than a decade before B.C. joined Confederation.

For his role in bringing British Columbia together, Sir James Douglas is commemorated on November 19 each year with Douglas Day. Next year Sir James Douglas will be honoured on a Canada Post stamp.

A century and a half later, British Columbians can still relate to the immigrant success story of Sir James Douglas, a British Columbian who was born in British Guiana, worked in Alberta and found success in British Columbia.

I hope the House will join me in wishing British Columbia a happy Douglas Day and a successful 150th anniversary next year as it continues under our government to be a booming province on the Pacific.

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that we have heard from the government House leader. I have also heard from my constituents that they are not happy with the Senate in its present form. They are asking for changes. They support what the government is proposing. They do want to see an accountable Senate. They would like to see senators elected, so the government's plan is taking us in that direction. They also want to see term limits.

My question for the member, though, relates to the Liberal Party's resistance to change. I would ask him why he thinks there is that resistance. Also, Alberta indicated through an election those whom Albertans would like to see appointed to the Senate. Again, the previous Liberal government ignored that.

We now have a Prime Minister who is seeking direction from Canadians on whom they would like to see in the Senate. The previous government did not do that. Could the member remind us of that example and give us his thoughts on why there is such a huge resistance from the Liberal Party? Why does it resist listening to Canadians? Canadians are unanimous in wanting to see a change in the Senate. Why are the Liberals resisting it?

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague across the way. I have a question for her: where does the Liberal Party stand?

She has been quite articulate in her positions, but the Liberal Party was very clear at committee, or at least the leader was very clear, that the Liberals wanted this. They asked for this. As we have heard, there was unanimous support for this at committee. However, we have heard from the members for Don Valley East and Don Valley West about their positions.

Therefore, I have a question for the member. Is this her position on the matter or is it her leader's position? If it is her leader's position, then I have a follow-up question: why has he changed his position on this? We have seen consistent flip-flops on this. Is this a stalling tactic? Canadians want this matter dealt with. Not very long ago, the committee was unanimous in asking that this be dealt with, and so the government is providing good legislation.

Is the member's position changing? Or is her leader's position changing? I hope she can answer those questions.

[Phthalate Control Act, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the committee for its good work. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Abbotsford, for his good work. He sat on that committee and worked hard, as he does in his constituency. He has done a great job on the environment and I want to thank him.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-307, the phthalate control act. I want to thank the member who brought this bill forward for the 20 minutes we heard him speak.

This bill seeks to conduct a reassessment of the risks of the two phthalates, BBP and DBP, within 24 months of the enactment of the bill. Bill C-307 would see the Department of Health publish a document concerning the labelling that is necessary to comply with the requirements of the medical devices regulations in relation to the risks inherent in medical devices that contain phthalates.

The bill would also require that the government take regulatory action under the Hazardous Products Act and the Food and Drugs Act to reduce Canadians' exposure to one phthalate in particular, DEHP, in cases where the risk to human health has been clearly determined.

Furthermore, the bill would require that the Minister of Health undertake a number of actions regarding medical devices which contain DEHP. I am pleased to say that the government supports this bill as amended in committee.

I am also pleased to say that this bill is a great example of what can be accomplished when all the members collaborate. The members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development rolled up their sleeves and worked together to ensure that Bill C-307 is legislation of which all members can be proud.

We put our political differences aside and worked together on the bill for the safety and health of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the environment committee for their hard work and diligence in crafting this bill.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals that are used to make certain types of plastic more soft and malleable. Bill C-307 deals with three of these phthalates, which I will refer to in their common names, BBP, DBP and DEHP.

Phthalates can be found in many places in our society, from ordinary household objects to manufacturing substances. One of the most important abilities of phthalates is to soften plastics, an important and lifesaving aspect for the medical community.

The first chemical, BBP, is a commonly used plasticizer which can be found in food conveyor belts, artificial leather, traffic cones and many other plastic types of foam. DBP can be found in many cosmetic products, particularly nail polish. DEHP is commonly found in medical devices, intravenous tubing, blood bags and other plastic medical instruments.

Recently, Health Canada found traces of phthalates in children's toys. I share the concerns of all parents who are being vigilant about chemicals to which their children may be exposed. This bill's emphasis on medical devices which contain phthalates addresses one of the government's priorities, the safety of all Canadians, one of the themes in last month's Speech from the Throne.

Health Canada's document will identify what devices and chemicals contained in devices need to be labelled as an inherent health risk. Canadians need to use these lifesaving devices, but they will not be risking their lives to use them.

The bill as amended by the committee tasks the government to reassess both BBP and DBP for any potential risks. These reassessments will be conducted by Health Canada scientists under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, also known as CEPA 99.

Previous Government of Canada assessments of BBP and DBP found these phthalates not to be toxic as defined under CEPA. However, several years have passed since these assessments were conducted and there will be new science reviewing whether or not these substances pose any risk to human health. This government will reassess these two phthalates to determine if, in light of the new information, there are unacceptable risks and detrimental health impacts.

The reassessments will provide the scientific backing required for any action the government may feel is necessary and warranted. This would include the consideration of human exposure to phthalates through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics, and of any communicative effects BBP and DBP may have on humans.

There are those who may argue that conducting these assessments merely delay action on BBP and DBP. I assure the House that this government takes decisive action on chemicals where risks have been determined. We will take action based on science.

The government will conduct risk assessments of BBP and DBP under CEPA to determine the risks to human health and then, if these phthalates are determined to be toxic, the government has a variety of legislative instruments to protect Canadians. If we do not find a scientific approach to risk management, we put in jeopardy the intent of this bill and could undermine the legislative integrity of the government's actions.

It should be noted that we support the precautionary principle which has been added to this bill. The precautionary principle says in effect that the knowledge does not have to be absolute before intervening but it must be enough to justify our actions.

I should also add that the Canada Health measures survey, which is a national survey involving measures, including blood sampling from 5,000 Canadians, is currently being conducted. This national survey will generate data to help us better understand the levels of chemicals in Canadians. The survey includes 11 compounds that could be found in people resulting from phthalate exposure.

Bill C-307 as amended by the environment committee is a much improved version of the bill. It seeks to assess and manage the risks associated with certain phthalates without undermining the science based approach to chemical substance management. That is good news.

This legislation will, if passed, support the government's continuing efforts to protect Canadians from exposure to toxic chemical substances with effective science based risk management solutions.

The government will be supporting Bill C-307 and I encourage all members of the House to support the bill.

Before I close, I want to acknowledge the men and women in uniform who have fought valiantly to protect Canada and to contribute in bringing democracy, safety and freedom to the world. My father served in the Canadian army. He was in the tanks division and was a tank instructor. He was a Canadian from Edmonton and went to England and served Canada and the world over there. My father passed away in July of this year and I miss him greatly.

I have been honoured to meet with many veterans. I am so proud of what we are doing in the world and particularly in Afghanistan. One would ask what would happen if Canada was to abandon Afghanistan, as has been suggested by some in this House. Women and children are now being given the opportunity to attend school. I dare not imagine what would happen if Canada were to leave Afghanistan.

I am supportive of us being in Afghanistan and that we stay there until the job is done. We need to honour those who have given their lives and we need to honour the reputation of Canada.

I remind every one of us to visit a cenotaph in our communities and to honour those Canadians who have served our country so valiantly. We must never forget the ultimate price that so many Canadians have given.