Bill C-298 (Historical)

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

moved that Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here today to talk about this bill which represents an important step in protecting the health of Canadians and our environment. Bill C-298 seeks the elimination from our environment of a chemical that poses a threat to the health of Canadians. This chemical, PFOS, is currently not regulated in Canada in any way.

First, allow me to explain briefly what PFOS is and what it is used for, then I will say why we need to eliminate it from our lives and from our environment.

PFOS is one of a larger class of chemicals known as PFCs. These chemicals are mainly used in consumer products for their non-stick, stain repellant and water repellant properties. PFOS itself is used mostly as a stain repellant in various consumer products, as well as in certain industrial applications.

Consumer products that may contain PFOS include rugs, carpets, fabric, upholstery, clothing, food packaging and certain industrial and household cleaners. Other applications include firefighting foams, hydraulic fluids, carpet spot removers, mining and oil well applications and metal plating processes, such as chrome plating.

The most famous application of PFOS was in the Scotchguard products manufactured by 3M. 3M voluntarily stopped using PFOS in 2000 at the urging of the U.S. EPA, citing the health and environmental dangers posed by the chemical.

I will turn now to the question of why we need to eliminate PFOS from our environment and from our lives. The risks posed by PFOS has been examined by a number of countries and by international bodies as well. They have all come to essentially the same conclusions: PFOS is a threat to human health and the environment.

Most of the health studies we have on the effects of PFOS deal with animals. In animals PFOS has been found to cause breast cancer, liver cancer and thyroid cancer and is known to harm the pancreas, the brain and the immune system.

PFOS is more persistent in the environment than DDT and PCBs. It is quite an awful piece of work. It is also persistent in the human body. Even if we could eliminate PFOS from our environment immediately, it would take eight years on average for our bodies to get rid of half of the PFOS in our systems.

In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said:

that continued manufacture and use of PFOS represents an unacceptable technology that should be eliminated to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long term consequences.

Those are strong words.

In April 2004, Environment Canada and Health Canada completed their own assessments of PFOS. They came to essentially the same conclusion. There are four basic questions that we need to ask when deciding whether a chemical poses a sufficient risk to human health and the environment that it should be regulated.

First, is the substance inherently toxic, that is, does it pose a health risk to humans or wildlife? Second, does it persist for long periods of time in the environment without breaking down into harmless compounds? Three, does it bioaccumulate, in other words, does it become more concentrated as it moves up the food chain? Four, is it used widely enough or in such a manner that there is a serious risk of human exposure?

PFOS meets all of these criteria. In its April 2004 assessment, Environment Canada concluded that PFOS is persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic. Similarly the U.S. EPA stated that, “PFOS appears to combine persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree”.

As to the fourth factor, the risk of exposure, we know that virtually all Canadians and Canadian wildlife are being exposed to PFOS. I will read briefly from the summary published by Environment Canada and Health Canada in the Canada Gazette. It states:

PFOS has been detected throughout the world, including in areas distant from sources, and in virtually all fish and wildlife sampled in the northern hemisphere, including Canadian wildlife in remote sites, far from sources or manufacturing facilities of PFOS and its precursors.

This suggests, not only that PFOS is pervasive in our environment, but that it travels very long distances once it enters the environment. As such, it is not only a risk for those using products that contain PFOS, the risk of exposure affects everyone.

What about human exposure? We have data on that as well. New and emerging evidence suggests that human exposure to PFOS is pervasive in Canada. Environmental Defence Canada has conducted two studies in which it tested Canadians from across the country to see if they had PFOS and a number of other chemicals in their bodies. This type of study is called body load testing.

The first report published in November 2005 tested 11 adults from across Canada. It found that all of them had PFOS in their bodies. The second, published just a couple of weeks ago, looked at members of five families in various regions of the country, parents, children and grandparents. Once again, all study participants had PFOS in their bodies.

The second report also revealed something new and very troubling. The concentration levels in children were higher than those in their parents. This means that dealing with PFOS is a serious and urgent question of children's health. Children may in fact be more vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals like PFOS because their bodies are growing and developing rapidly. The fact that they have higher levels of PFOS in their systems means that we need to act now, not later.

This all adds up to the fact that PFOS poses a danger to Canadians' health and the environment. I doubt that we will hear anyone dispute this fact in the House today. Among those I have talked to so far, everyone seems to agree that PFOS poses an unacceptable risk. The question is what we should do about it. What action should we take?

I mentioned earlier that Environment Canada and Health Canada completed a draft assessment of PFOS in April 2004. On the basis of that assessment, the ministers of these departments made two proposals for action. These were published in the Canada Gazette on October 2, 2004.

The first recommendation was that PFOS be added to the list of toxic substances under CEPA which is found in schedule 1. The second recommendation was the implementation of virtual elimination of PFOS. This is precisely what Bill C-298 proposes to do. It requires the virtual elimination of PFOS.

Virtual elimination has a specific meaning under CEPA, which is laid out in clause 65 of the bill. It means that the substance cannot be released into the environment at any level or concentration that cannot be accurately measured using sensitive but routine sampling and analytical methods. Essentially, the chemicals should not be entering the environment at any level that is detectable using the best commonly available measurement techniques. As I understand it, virtual elimination, as its name suggests, is a mechanism that is intended to eliminate harmful substances like PFOS from our environment.

If Environment Canada and Health Canada have already recommended the virtual elimination of PFOS, why do we need a bill? There are two reasons.

Given the mounting evidence about the risk posed to Canada by PFOS, we must ensure that our response is speedy and we must ensure that it is adequate. Neither of these things is assured if we simply continue down the normal regulatory path.

In terms of the response being speedy, allow me to outline what moving forward with the normal regulatory process might look like.

As I understand it, the next step would normally be another publication in the Canada Gazette, accompanied by a recommendation to the governor in council. In the Canada Gazette posting, the ministers would outline the process they intended to follow to develop a regulation or instrument to address the risk posed by PFOS. After that, they would have two years to actually propose a regulation or an instrument. Once they have made this proposal, they would another 18 months to review feedback on what they have proposed.

After 18 months, if no material or substantive changes are required, the regulation or instrument would be published. By my account, this means that if we were to take the next step tomorrow, we might be a little over three years away from an actual regulation to address the threat of PFOS.

More than two years after the initial assessment was completed, the prospect of waiting another three or four years before anything gets done to address the threat posed by PFOS is simply unconscionable. There are ways that the ministers could choose to act more expeditiously.

These are outlined in the bill as well. I do not want to speculate on what path the ministers might choose to take, but the bottom line is that for the sake of our children and for the sake of our environment, we need to act now, not later.

In my opinion, this bill is the right way to do that because it ensures that not only is the response timely, it is also adequate.

It is the nature of the regulatory process that until we have a final regulation, we do not actually know what the response will be. Without knowing specifically what the minister intends to recommend, I cannot comment on whether or not it would be an adequate response. I can say that experience has taught us that merely adding a chemical to the list of toxic substances does not guarantee significant action. In fact, it does not guarantee any action at all.

This bill avoids that problem. If Parliament were to pass this bill, they would know what kind of response they would get to the threat posed by PFOS. They would know it would be adequate and they would know it would be carried out in a timely fashion.

Other countries have already taken action to protect their citizens and their environment from exposure to PFOS. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of PFOS in 2000, with the exception of a few very specific applications. Other countries have since moved to ban or severely restrict the use of PFOS. Sweden has proposed a global ban on the substance under the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, sometimes called the POPs treaty.

The POPs committee is now moving forward with its consideration of PFOS to decide if it should be included under the Stockholm treaty. A draft report prepared for the committee in May of this year found that PFOS meets all of the criteria for inclusion. The report concludes with the following statement:

Due to the harmful POP properties and risks related to its possible continuing production and use, global action is warranted to eliminate the pollution caused by PFOS.

Incidentally, we also learned from this report that Environment Canada and Health Canada have revised their ecological and human health assessments on PFOS and that the revised versions should be publicly available soon. I look forward to seeing these.

Sweden is right. PFOS belongs on this list of persistent organic pollutants banned under the Stockholm treaty, but in the meantime we need to deal with it here at home. We simply cannot allow Canada to lag behind when it comes to protecting human health and the environment. We must act now, not later, to protect Canadians from exposure to PFOS. That is the objective of this bill, and I hope that all parties and all members will support it.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her concern about this chemical. I have a couple of questions for her.

First, this product has not been allowed to be sold in Canada since 2002. It is in the process. CEPA is dealing with it, basically to get this banned. My worry is, and I think all Canadians and my hon. colleague across the way should be concerned, that this private member's bill could actually hamper the efforts of CEPA.

Second, why, after the 13 years that her party was in government, was the thing not banned in that time? I would like that answered. Why does she not just let the CEPA process work because this bill could actually damage that? I would like to hear her comments on that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange how this could possibly hamper the process.

First, with respect to the previous government, the regulatory process is very complex and it takes a long time. I have outlined in fact why it takes a long time.

Second, there is new evidence which demonstrates that PFOS is a real problem in the Canadian context. We need to act now, rather than later.

When we put together the new evidence, as I said earlier, a great deal of time is taken to actually address the situation. I do not believe that we can wait that long.

Third, my understanding is that CEPA is not looking to ban the product. As I understand it, it is looking to list it, which is not the exact same thing. It can be listed as a toxic substance, but that in itself does not deal with the issue nor does it take it out of the environment entirely.

When I was the minister responsible for international cooperation, I was responsible at the time to deal with the issue of POPs, persistent organic pollutants. As part of Canada's response to the environment on the international scene, I was responsible to work with POPs in developing countries.

The reason that Canada was involved in investing money with developing countries to eliminate the use of persistent organic pollutants is because they are landing in northern Canada. We have a very direct interest in this issue. The reason why POPs are banned is because they are persistent and they stay in the environment. They are bioaccumulative.

Canada was very aggressively involved with developing countries with regard to the elimination of POPs, first because they were bad for everyone in the world, but also because they were landing in our north.

Exactly the same thing is happening with PFOS. In fact, as I said earlier, this substance is even more persistent than some of the other ones. PFOS is harder to get rid of in the environment and in the system. It takes decades and maybe never. PFOS affects children more than it affects adults. Quite frankly, I do not see how a bill that is addressing a very serious issue could hamper the work that CEPA is doing.

I presume and I know that the review certainly can integrate whatever decision the House makes. Quite frankly, Parliament can make decisions that are over and above whatever CEPA is doing. I do not see how that would hamper it.

As I said, this substance is serious. It is bad. In Stockholm, the United States, even the company 3M has stopped using it. In fact, Environment Canada in 2004 stated that it should be quasi-listed and virtually eliminated. Now we are talking about listing it as a toxin. That is not sufficient.

I think that this substance is bad for children, bad for our environment, and bad for the country. We should do as other countries have already done and continue to do. It should be listed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to begin by thanking the member for her work on this file and her obvious concern for the environment.

The government does not support Bill C-298, her private member's bill, dealing with the chemical substance perfluorooctane sulfonate, known as PFOS.

Both the ministers of environment and health have already conducted a draft assessment on the risks of PFOS that it may pose to both humans and the environment, and the member acknowledged that in her speech. The ministers will also follow up with proposed actions to manage identified risks.

The government has an open and transparent process under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA 99, to assess and manage the risks posed by substances such as PFOS. Under the current legislation in CEPA 99 substances come forward for a scientific risk assessment. The risks of the scientific assessment are then used to initiative appropriate risk management actions.

As members of the House are aware, CEPA 99 was enacted to protect the environment and human health. As I said earlier, the departments of environment and health have been actively evaluating the science of PFOS in order to make sound decisions concerning the risks that PFOS may pose and the most suitable risk management actions to take if required.

As part of the science assessment the departments consider all available scientific information concerning PFOS and follow an open and transparent assessment process as required under CEPA 99.

Officials from Environment Canada and Health Canada have drafted a screening risk assessment of PFOS. As part of the process a draft assessment was released in October 2004 for review by a large number of scientific experts in the field. It was formally released to solicit public comment.

In releasing the draft assessment the ministers gave notice of their intent to recommend that PFOS be added to the list of toxic substances under CEPA 99. All comments received on the proposal and assessment were carefully considered and incorporated into the assessment where appropriate.

The revised assessment concludes that PFOS is a persistent biocumulative and inherently toxic substance in the environment. Furthermore, the revised assessment concludes that PFOS is entering the environment in concentrations that may have a harmful effect on the environment. These conclusions have not changed from the initial draft assessment. Canada's conclusions are also in agreement with the assessment decisions and actions of other countries.

The revised assessment states that PFOS meets criteria established under section 64 of CEPA 99. In examining the risks posed by this substance to humans, it was concluded that concentrations of PFOS do not currently constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. The final science risk assessment should be published shortly.

I would like to now provide some context on what PFOS is, its use and its potential impact on the Canadian environment. PFOS has been used primarily for oil, grease and water repellants, specifically used on rugs, carpets, fabric, upholstery and food packaging. The hon. member mentioned some of those. PFOS has also some specialized uses such as firefighting foams and hydraulic fluids.

It should be emphasized that PFOS is not manufactured in Canada. PFOS is not in the Canadian marketplace and is largely unavailable to the average Canadian consumer. Emerging science shows that PFOS is found around the globe in the environment and wildlife.

Transported over long distances by air movements and ocean currents, PFOS is found in remote regions such as the Arctic. Some of the highest concentrations measured in the world are in polar bears in the Canadian Arctic. Leading Canadian scientists have spearheaded this groundbreaking research.

PFOS has been found in many fish, fish-eating birds and Arctic mammals such as polar bears. It has been shown to accumulate in animal tissue and concentrating in increasing amounts up the food chain.

These concentrations are at or approaching the levels known to cause harm to wildlife. Harmful effects can include regressing growth in birds and aquatic invertebrates, liver and thyroid effects in mammals, lethality in fish and changes to biodiversity. Concentrations of PFOS in polar bears are higher than any other known persistent organic pollutants, otherwise known as POPs.

Therefore, as noted previously, the ministers gave notice that based on available information, they propose adding PFOS to the list of toxic substances.

The problem with Bill C-298 is that it would disrupt the process that is currently under way to develop a comprehensive risk management strategy. This proposed risk management strategy will ensure the protection of the health of Canadians and their environment. Under the existing legislation and regulatory framework, the Department of the Environment will soon propose a risk management strategy, in consultation with stakeholders, to address PFOS and to ensure the protection of the environment.

Furthermore, the department's proposed risk management actions will be consistent with international actions and activities on this substance. For example, the United States has established restrictions to control new uses of PFOS. The United Kingdom has proposed restrictions on the supply and use of PFOS. Sweden has filed a proposal to the European Commission for a national ban on PFOS. The European Union has proposed market instruments and use restrictions of PFOS in 2006.

Canada is engaged in multinational efforts to address the risks posed by this substance. For example, Canada is a signatory of a number of relevant international agreements. We acknowledge the nomination of PFOS to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe protocol on long range transboundary air pollution, and its nomination to the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants.

Canada will continue to engage our international partners in global action on PFOS to complement our domestic policy. Supporting these efforts is critical to addressing the long range transport of PFOS into the Canadian environment.

In conclusion, we do not want to jeopardize the assessment process as it nears completion for PFOS. It is clear that under its current powers and authorities the government is committed to the control of toxic substances and pollution prevention. The necessary steps are being taken to further the continued protection of the Canadian environment, particularly the Arctic ecosystems, and to minimize impacts.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great joy today to rise and speak to Bill C-298, presented by the hon. member for Beaches—East York. This bill requires that the Minister of the Environment add perfluorooctane sulfonate, more commonly known as PFOS, to the Virtual Elimination List under subsection 65(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, passed by this House in 1999, and to do so within nine months of the enactment of the bill.

The minister,under the bill tabled by the member, must also make regulations prescribing the quantity or concentration of that substance that may be released into the environment, either alone or in combination with any other substance, in order to achieve the virtual elimination of the substance.

I would first like to recall that virtual elimination, in the context of discharging a toxic substance into the environment as the result of human activity, means the ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of a substance released into the environment to below the level of quantification specified by the ministers in the list contemplated in section 65 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

What is PFOS? This substance is such that its salts and precursors belong to a broader category of fluorinated chemical substances. The term PFOS may refer to any of these forms, that is, anions, acids or salts.

PFOS and its precursors are used mainly to manufacture water-repellent and soil-repellent agents on surfaces and papers, such as rugs and carpets, fabrics and upholstery, and food packaging, as well as specialized chemical products, such as carpet stain removers, surface-active agents, such as detergents, frothing agents, wetting agents, dispersing agents and emulsifying agents for mines and oil wells.

As some of my colleagues have indicated, in Canada, there is no known production of compounds, of which PFOS is one. Some 600 tonnes of compounds were imported to Canada from 1997 to 2000, PFOS representing only a very small part of this total.

What are the effects of PFOS? First of all, according to the available data, PFOS penetrates the environment in quantities or in conditions that may immediately or in the long term have a harmful effect—and I stress the word harmful—on the environment or its biological diversity. The presence of this product in the environment is chiefly due to human activities, and these inorganic substances do not occur naturally in the environment.

As we consider this bill introduced by my hon. colleague, it should be pointed out that, in 2004, the government published in part I of the Canada Gazette a notice of its intention to add PFOS to the list of toxic substances and recommend its virtual elimination. The notice invited comments from the public for a 60 day period.

To date, however, schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Act has yet to be amended to include PFOS. One might think that, at the time, the government heard from industry representatives who came forward to ask that the government defer adding it to the list. I want to stress that it is very likely that industrial sectors intervened with both the previous government and the current one. The latter announced today that it opposed the bill introduced by the former minister.

Is it normal not to be further along after two years?

One has to wonder if this long delay is due to a lack of will on the part of the administration, which is certainly under pressure by the industries concerned to delay designating PFOS as a toxic substance. Should, however, this be a standard delay due to a ponderous democracy, it would be totally unacceptable. It is indeed unacceptable to take nearly two years to restrict the use of a substance proven to be harmful. If the blame lies with the bureaucracy, we will have to do something about that at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, to ensure that, once they have been assessed as harmful, substances become regulated without delay.

In fact, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Act and, as part of our work, we will certainly have to hear evidence from groups, both environmental and industrial ones. We will also have to ensure that the process can be sped up from the moment that a substance has been declared harmful.

As the parliamentary secretary said, high concentrations of PFOS have been found in certain wildlife species. For example, it has been found in polar bears, elsewhere in the world in some kinds of fish, in Japan and the Netherlands, and in the environment. The documents provided by Environment Canada show that the highest ambient concentration recorded was higher than the threshold concentration, which suggests possible effects on aquatic organisms, birds and mammals. Minimal concentrations were found in the livers of wildlife species in remote parts of the Canadian Arctic, including mink, common loon, seal, brook trout, Arctic fox and polar bear. This is the reality. Some toxic effects have been discovered, and departmental specialists have found concentrations in aquatic organisms.

In my final minute, I would like to say that we will support the bill introduced by the member today. We will support it because, among other things, a study released in 2005 by Environmental Defence showed that high concentrations have been found in humans. Eleven volunteers agreed to take part in a number of studies and evaluations.

Given the toxic effect on aquatic environments, and given existing concentrations, even in humans, we will support this bill and we hope it will pass speedily given the current situation. We will most likely be examining this issue during our review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight to Bill C-298, a private member's bill to add perfluorooctane sulfonate, PFOS, to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This substance is commonly used in many fabrics, usually as a stain repellent. Recent tests have suggested it causes organ damage and problems in development. These tests prompted the USEPA to ban the substance.

PFOS is both persistent and bioaccumulative, according to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act criteria, more persistent than DDT or PCBs.

If we were to eliminate PFOS today, it would take each of us an average of eight years to get rid of half of this chemical in our bodies. In the meantime, our bodies continue to accumulate PFOS.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley also has a private member's bill before the House to eliminate phthalates, another chemical, in children's toys, cosmetics and medical devices.

There is extensive scientific literature reporting adverse effects of phthalates, particularly on children, including early puberty in girls, premature delivery of babies, impaired sperm quality and sperm damage in men, genital defects, and reduced testosterone production in boys and testicular cancer.

The EU has banned three of the listed phthalates in children's toys and the other three from toys for children under the age of three.

I am speaking tonight to this private member's bill, not only as a member of Parliament but also as a mother of three sons. Two of my sons have been diagnosed with cancer, different types of cancer. The cancers that my two sons have are not related.

Of course, as parents, we search for reasons why this devastating disease has attacked our child, or in my case, two of my children. I believe, in talking to their oncologist, in talking to the researchers in this field, that it is entirely possible that both of the instances of cancer in my children may have been caused by environmental degradation.

As we collect more and more evidence of the harmful effects of these chemicals to our bodies and to our environment, it is time to act. Both these private members' bills introduce a concept of reverse onus, which would require proof that a chemical is safe before it is allowed to be marketed rather than having to prove a chemical is harmful after the fact.

We owe this to our children. Our children deserve no less. The NDP is supporting this private member's bill to rid our environment of PFOS, a harmful chemical.

I urge the member who has introduced the bill, the member for Beaches—East York, to bring the support of her caucus to my colleague's private member's bill to ban phthalates.

As I said earlier, we owe this abundance of caution to our children. We owe it for a healthy environment and for the development of healthy children. What could be more important than the health of our children and the future of our planet? We must all support this bill in the House of Commons.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-298, the private member's bill of the member for Beaches—East York, to add perflurooctane sulfonate, otherwise known as PFOS, to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA.

Last week we held a joint news conference to raise awareness of the need to act more quickly in protecting the health of Canadians and to bring this pressing issue to the attention of all Canadians. “What you don't know can't hurt you”. That old saying is obviously not true. We cannot turn a blind eye to these realities. We can no longer ignore how serious these chemicals are, and they are all around us.

Earlier this month a recent study, undertaken by Environmental Defence, titled “Polluted Children, Toxic Nation” provided yet more reasons for the government to take action. It tested children, parents, grandparents from five Canadian families who provided blood and urine samples that were tested for 68 toxic chemicals. The shocking results indicated that 46 of these toxic chemicals were detected, including PFOS.

The presence of these chemicals in children as young as 10 years old raises serious concerns about what impact they may have on the health, well-being and development of Canadian families today and in the future. The bottom line is the toxicity of Canadians is increasing, and this should be of concern to everyone, and no less to the government.

The Globe and Mail also recently did a week long series about toxic chemicals and their impact on us as human beings and our environment. I know my constituents, many of whom brought these issues to my attention, have expressed a great deal of concern and want the government to take action and not sit idly by.

In October 2004 both Environment Canada and Health Canada thought that the virtual elimination of PFOS not only could be implemented, but should be. There was no room for ambiguity on this question.

There are many aspects in our lives that we cannot control. Therefore, it is particularly incumbent upon us to take the appropriate steps, especially when we have the opportunity and the tools to take preventative and precautionary measures to eliminate a number of very significant and serious threats to our environment and our health.

As science and technology move forward at lightening speed, with more information becoming available and coming to light, it is imperative that we do not keep our heads in the sand. On the contrary, we need to respond accordingly and in a timely way. We need to protect the health of Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has said that PFOS is not in Canada, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with him. If that were true, then why was it found in Canadians? The reality is we are learning more and more about our surrounding environment and the elements that affect our health. People have become more educated over time and demanding that we take seriously the threats and risks to our health.

There have been many instances, historically, when people have resisted questioning the status quo until it has proven unequivocally true. One glaring example is smoking and lung cancer. Knowledge has allowed people and governments to take action to protect their health. Sometimes just changing one aspect or behaviour has made a significant difference.

We must wake up and take the lead in these matters. Canada is lagging behind and it will be at all our expense, in particular our children who have been found to have the most concentrated levels. The U.S., the European Union and other nations have recognized the urgency and are taking action.

I will quote from the testimony given recently by Dr. Kapil Khatter, a family physician working with Pollution Watch, which is a joint project of Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. He said:

There is ample evidence to suggest that Canada is failing to meet its environmental challenges, and falling behind internationally. According to a recent study of OECD data, Canada ranked 28th out of 29 OECD countries in emissions, 29th out of 29 in volatile organic compounds, 27th out of 28 in sulphur oxides, 26th out of 28 in nitrogen oxides...

The United States has legally enforceable national ambient air quality standards and water quality criteria that are enforceable, whereas Canada does not. They have strong regulations and agreements with companies to phase out some of the most persistent and toxic chemicals, the most problematic chemicals right now, like PFOS flame retardants and stain repellents, while we are still trying to finalize our assessments. The United States has a comprehensive program to test for body chemical levels. We don't even know how much lead our children are being exposed to right now.

Health is of the utmost importance to Canadians. We cannot turn our back on the need to take steps to protect and improve our health and quality of life. The stakes are too high.

These types of known problematic or dangerous chemicals have been shown to leach into our environment, not only in the area of their use but they are able to migrate.

As a 14 year breast cancer survivor, I understand and appreciate how precious and important good health is. When we consider that this chemical has been shown to cause breast cancer in animals, this is more than compelling. The fact that this seems to be taken not as seriously as it should be and rejected out of hand by the government is very disturbing. We must apply precautionary measures where there is or has been a demonstrated or likely risk factor.

We have a responsibility to future generations, to our children. We cannot just wash our hands of information brought to our attention in such a fashion. We must confront and deal with this issue quickly and decisively.

As a mother five children, I am more troubled by the effects, particularly on our children. They are the most vulnerable, developmentally, and they are relying on all of us to be vigilant regarding their health.

Yes, we must live our lives with zest and full participation, but we must do so with great regard and respect to this great gift of health. I understand that, as many others do. It must not be taken for granted; it must be protected. First and foremost, we must all be our own health advocates, never giving up these rights and responsibilities to safeguard our health as individuals or as a government.

I applaud my colleague from Beaches—East York for moving this issue to the top of the agenda. We have the tools available to take the appropriate steps to avert the threat that these chemicals pose. All that is needed is the will to take action.

There is a provision in the act that allows for interim orders to be made respecting such substances as one option. The issue of adding perfluorooctane sulfonate, PFOS, to the virtual elimination list is now before the House. Now it is up to the government to move forward without further delay or procrastination. The health of all Canadians depends on it.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Environment's draft screening assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonate, known as PFOS, concluded in October 2004 that PFOS is a persistent bioaccumulative and inherently toxic substance in the environment. It meets the definition in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, in that it is entering into the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have a harmful effect on the environment. The initial conclusions have not changed and it is expected that a final assessment will be published shortly.

The Department of the Environment is proposing that priority be given to the development of actions to protect the health of Canadians and their environment. Under the existing legislative and regulatory framework, the Department of the Environment will propose and develop actions for PFOS with the participation of stakeholders, including the public, industry, non-governmental organizations, and provincial and territorial governments.

To support the development of these actions, the Department of the Environment will investigate the various instruments and tools available to control PFOS in Canada. The Department of the Environment will analyze the costs and benefits of the proposed actions to ensure the most appropriate approach that results in a net benefit for Canadians is chosen.

It would be premature to add PFOS to the virtual elimination list and develop release limit regulations as proposed by Bill C-298 before the Department of the Environment can fully consult or perform the necessary supporting analysis. The Department of the Environment is expecting to propose a strategy very shortly in consultation with stakeholders.

This strategy will outline proposed actions to control PFOS in a way that releases to the Canadian environment would ultimately be eliminated to ensure the protection of the health of Canadians and their environment. The development of the strategy and the implementation of actions will be carried out independently of any decision on the virtual elimination list or regulations prescribing release concentration limits. Today's reality is that PFOS is not manufactured in or exported from Canada, nor is it used or imported into Canada in significant quantities.

In 2000 the major global manufacturer of PFOS announced a voluntary phase-out of production of this substance by 2002. Prior to 2002 the primary uses of PFOS in Canada were for applications involving water, oil, soil and grease repellents for fabric, leather, packaging, rugs and carpets, as well as additives in firefighting foams, aviation hydraulic fluids, photographic photofinishing, paints and coatings.

Since 2002 the majority of PFOS imports and uses in Canada have ceased. In comparison to early PFOS import and use data whereby seven industrial sectors were involved, a survey of Canadian industry confirms that after the phase-out for the 2004 calendar year, PFOS is imported and used by only a single industrial sector.

With the exception of the existing stockpile of PFOS based firefighting foam that is used to extinguish fuel fires, all other stockpiles of PFOS in Canada have now been exhausted. It is estimated that this reduction in use in Canada since 2002 has resulted in a significant decrease in releases to the environment. Also, PFOS products and formulations are largely unavailable to the average Canadian consumer.

The Department of the Environment plans to pursue actions that will ensure PFOS does not re-enter the Canadian marketplace and address the remaining exposure sources. Stakeholders will be given a formal opportunity to participate in consultations shortly following the distribution of the proposed PFOS risk management strategy. The ultimate objective of this strategy will be a total phase-out of PFOS in Canada.

The strategy will propose an action plan to address the environmental risks associated with PFOS in Canada and outline a proposed approach on the virtual elimination list. Stakeholders, including the public, industry, non-governmental organizations and provincial and territorial governments will have an opportunity to comment on this strategy through various forums. Further consultations with stakeholders will be held as the Department of the Environment proceeds with the implementation of the strategy and develops appropriate preventive and control instruments.

The Department of the Environment's ability to fully consult with stakeholders on the strategy, the approach to virtual elimination and any proposed preventive and control instruments that may follow would be limited under the timeline specified in proposed Bill C-298.

Bill C-298 is proposing to develop regulations prescribing release concentration limits of PFOS within nine months of specifying its levels of quantification. Given that most industrial and commercial uses of PFOS have already ceased in Canada, the key remaining source of exposure is through municipal landfills and waste water treatment plants.

Potential releases of PFOS from those sources are expected from the disposal and use of consumer articles which were treated with PFOS as a repellant prior to 2002. These consumer articles include rugs and carpets, furniture, fabrics, leather articles, packaging and photographic material. A proposal to regulate the concentration of PFOS released from municipal landfills and waste water treatment facilities would require careful analysis to identify the availability of technology to capture or reduce PFOS from those sources and to determine if release concentration regulation is the most practical and cost-effective means of protecting the environment.

The Department of the Environment is continuing to work with the international community on PFOS. The approaches taken in other jurisdictions will be considered during the development and implementation of proposed actions in Canada.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established three significant new use rules, SNURs, in 2002, 2003 and 2006 to control PFOS and its precursors and other perfluorinated compounds. The United Kingdom has proposed restrictions on the supply and use of PFOS. Sweden has filed a proposal for a national ban on PFOS with the European Commission. The European Union has proposed market instruments and use restrictions for PFOS in 2006.

PFOS is under consideration for addition to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long range transboundary air pollution and the protocol to the Stockholm convention which addresses persistent organic pollutants. PFOS continues to pass review steps for inclusion in the protocol and convention.

Canada will continue to engage our international partners in global action to eliminate the remaining uses and production of PFOS around the world and to complement our domestic actions. Supporting these efforts is critical to addressing the long range transport of PFOS into the Canadian environment and the ultimate global phase-out of these substances.

The Department of the Environment is committed to pollution prevention and the control of toxic substances. The necessary steps will be taken to continue the protection of the Canadian environment, especially in our Arctic ecosystems and to further minimize impacts on a global scale.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-298, the perfluorooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act. At the beginning of the bill reference is made to, “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada”. It is important that since we are paying respect to Her Majesty, we congratulate Her Majesty on her 80th birthday. We recently saw on the news all the fanfare that was associated with her birthday. She has been a long reigning monarch and has done great service to our dominion, along with many of the other countries in the Commonwealth. Her Majesty is a fine royal example for our assembly, as well as for many others.

I was recently at Spruce Meadows when His Royal Highness Prince Edward was there. He was presenting the Duke of Edinburgh awards. It was a lovely event. He was handing out awards to young people. The awards encourage young people, I believe starting at the age of 14, to participate in volunteer activities. As long as they have completed an expedition along with other aspects of a certain amount of community hours, by the time they turn 25 years of age, they are eligible for the Duke of Edinburgh award. That is something that is highly valuable and encourages young people to do volunteer work in their community. I congratulate members of the royal family in terms of their involvement and support for that program.

I will now turn to the intricacies of Bill C-298 which relates to the Conservative Party's environment policy. I am very supportive of what our party and government has done on this matter, in that we are pursuing a made in Canada policy.

There are many others in the House who support the idea for Canada's environmental policies to be made in other places. For example, when it comes to the Kyoto accord, they would prefer that our policies were made in Japan, or that in a sense we pay homage to Russia with regard to environmental policies by shipping credits and money to those countries that have worse environmental records than Canada's record. Some people in this place in their support for some of the Kyoto provisions would have us send money and credits and whatnot to China. That is a serious problem. We have to be mindful that it is far better to support a made in Canada policy.

Another country that has an incredible number of people along with some policies that could be questioned is India. India is a large parliamentary democracy. We want to make sure that our policies are made in Canada.

What we are talking about with Bill C-298 is the idea that we will be dealing with waste water treatment here in Canada. We will be dealing with landfills here in Canada. We are not dealing with exporting credits or moneys, Canadian taxpayer dollars, to other jurisdictions in order for them to look after some of their concerns. The environment is a global concern, but we must look at what we can do here in our own backyard before we look overseas internationally.

We can suggest things to those other countries as they can suggest things to us, but it is very important that we look after Canada first. As a matter of fact, as legislators, Canada is our primary responsibility. It is important that we are mindful of that, that we look after our own backyard. We must do the best for our children and grandchildren.

The House resumed from June 15, 2006, consideration of the motion that Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to take part in today's discussion on Bill C-298 introduced by the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

My goal is to illustrate the importance of this bill for protecting the environment and for the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This chemical, referred to as perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS, is one of the many threats to the health of current and future generations.

PFOS is part of the perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs.

The four non-metallic elements in the halogen group are chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine.

Many common products contain chlorine. Just look at PCBs alone, including organochlorine pesticides such as aldrin, chlordane and mirex.

Many common products also contain fluorine. Take for example all the compounds eliminated from air conditioners and refrigerators that were affecting the ozone layer.

Now it is PFOS that needs our attention and review.

Its anti-adhesive, anti-stain and impermeable properties are very attractive for manufacturers of new products and new clothing.

Among the large number of consumer products that may contain PFOS, there are carpets, fabrics, upholstery, food packaging, cleaning products and industrial and domestic stain removers. Everyone has had or still has Scotchgard^TM made by 3M.

All these consumer products can already be found in our homes and their numbers are likely to grow in the future, given that there are currently very attractive designer garments and quality material treated with PFOS in Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese and South-East Asian factories. More products will mean more imports and more skin contact with PFOS.

We are talking about a persistent, bioaccumulative and intrinsically toxic substance, according to an annex to the document published by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health containing the results of a survey and recommendations on PFOS. The conclusion of that document, published in the Canada Gazette, does state:

Based on available information for ecological considerations, it is concluded that PFOS...meet the criterion set out in paragraph 64(a)—

Paragraph 64(a) reads as follows:

64. —a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that

(a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;

Examples of presence of PFOS in the environment can be found readily in the literature. Evidence of the presence of PFOS even in the blood and liver of the polar bear confirms that the environment has been contaminated by this substance, that this substance is persistent, that it travels, that it is bioaccumulated and, worse yet, that it is bioamplified through the food chain, from the fish to the seal to the polar bear, all the while increasing in concentration. That is what is called bioamplification.

What about humans?

Our first surprise came from a document entitled “Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families”. This document by an organization called Environmental Defence reveals the results of laboratory tests conducted on 13 volunteers of various ages: six adults and seven children. Of the 68 chemicals studied, 46 were detected in 13 volunteers, 32 products on average in the parents and 23 in the seven children.

Thirty-eight of these chemicals are carcinogens, 23 are hormone disruptors, 12 are respiratory toxins, 38 are reproductive or developmental toxins, and 19 are neurotoxins.

Five of the 13 perfluorinated chemicals targeted by the study were detected, including four in the children and five in the adults. Two perfluorinated chemicals were detected in all of the volunteers, namely, PFOS and PFOA.

The median concentrations of the perfluorinated chemicals was 13.5 micrograms per litre among the 6 adults, compared to 13.8 among the children, which is what inspired the title of the report, “Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families”.

In addition to the shocking news revealed in the Environmental Defence group report, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development received another shock during the meeting of October 19, 2006. The testimony of Kenneth Cook, president of the Washington, D.C., office of the Environmental Working Group (U.S.A.), had quite an effect on the committee. In fact, Mr. Cook revealed the results of the analyses of 10 blood samples taken from newborns that confirmed the presence of numerous toxins in these babies' bodies.

This confirms that the toxins absorbed or accumulated by adults throughout our lifetime, through ingestion, inhalation or contact with the skin, can also be transmitted to the fetus through the placenta in the uterus. This is an incredible discovery that demonstrates that newborn babies no longer have the option of taking positive action against toxins later on in life through healthy living, a strictly controlled diet or a pure environment. Babies no longer have that option later in life, for they already have toxins in their system from birth. They are born contaminated. This is appalling.

This is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on the bill on behalf of the NDP caucus and specifically my colleague from Skeena, the environment critic for the NDP who has a very similar bill put in place, dealing with a different series of chemicals but virtually identical in its motivation to try to protect Canadian consumers and citizens by eliminating some of the more harmful chemicals.

Where we have knowledge that these products can hurt Canadians, there is no good or compelling reason, be it commercial or any other reason, why they should not be eliminated and put on the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I am glad to rise in this context simply because Canadians have to take more seriously the environmental threats to public health.

I saw the recent Wendy Mesley program on CBC where she, in a very touching way, dealt with her own personal brush with cancer and the frustration she felt. More and more she felt the medical community was throwing the blame back on the individual. Maybe it was something she did. Maybe she smoked too much. Maybe she did not eat the right foods. Maybe she did not get enough exercise. In actual fact, maybe we are being subjected to such a chemical soup every day that we are being poisoned, not to use too strong a word, by our environment.

We especially should be using the precautionary principle. We should not have to wait until a specific chemical can be linked directly to a specific symptom we have before we throw up our arms and say that there is a connection. We should, proactively, based on the body of information when it reaches a certain critical mass, take the precautionary principle and say that we have a pretty good reason to believe the chemical is hazardous to our health and it should be put on the virtual elimination list.

That is the case with the compound PFOS. We are satisfied that the scientific community has investigated, analyzed and assessed the risk of harm that this chemical causes to people and wildlife. We are not satisfied that there are arguments to the contrary to anyone's satisfaction, other than those produced by the manufacturer of the chemical.

In that way, the chemical falls into the same category as another environmental hazard, which we raise frequently in the House, and that is the government's lack of action on asbestos, the greatest industrial hazard the world has ever known.

Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that Canada is now the second largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. The reason I raise it in this context is that we are seeking to have PFOS put on the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act while the world's developed nations are trying to have asbestos put on the Rotterdam Convention, which is the international list of hazardous chemicals that the world has put in place. Canada continues to oppose having asbestos put on the list of hazardous materials under the Rotterdam Convention. In fact, we spend a great deal of taxpayer money flying teams of lawyers around the world to argue against listing asbestos as a hazardous product.

It is in that same vein that we can make the argument that we should proactively list PFOSs on the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It frustrates me no end that we are not more aggressive and proactive with other products and other chemicals. Asbestos is only one. Those of us who were here in the last Parliament will remember that the NDP used one of its opposition days to call for the Government of Canada to take steps to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides, the non-agricultural, non-essential use of pesticides.

We use the same logic that unless it is absolutely necessary, we should be taking every precaution possible to minimize the exposure of Canadians to these chemicals, especially children, pregnant women and nursing women, or lactating women. Why would we put ourselves at risk? Why would we put our population at risk when we have good reason to believe that these products cause staggering health effects?

We know that leading environmental NGOs have campaigned for years to have this chemical banned in Canada. We also know it is one of the most common exposures because it is commonly used in fabrics as a stain repellant. I do not know if trade names such as Scotchgard apply, but we all know that it was a trend in recent years that furniture and even clothing, men's suits for instance, would be advertised as stain resistant. We are talking about that type of usage. It is reasonable to believe that not just workers are being exposed at a job site. Ordinary citizens in their homes and in the clothes they wear are exposed to this material.

Tests, which have indicated that it causes organ damage and developmental problems, were enough to prompt the United States Environmental Protection Agency to ban the substance. To those who would say that Canada is being too proactive, in actual fact we are lagging behind our neighbours to the south with this product. I never like being trumped by my neighbours to the south. In the case of environmental protection, I would like to think that Canada would be at the leading edge, at the vanguard of environmental protection. However, in this case , in recognizing the organic pollutant qualities of PFOS, clearly the United States is way out in front.

There are proactive steps that we can take that would improve the general state of public health. Rather than putting all our health dollars into trying to fix Canadian citizens after they have been broken, after they are sick, we have to start paying more attention to creating a generally healthier population.

In our NDP caucus we have often said that the Minister of Health is kind of a misnomer. The Minister of Health has very little to do with promoting health. The Minister of Health is all about fixing people after they are sick. We should be spending at least as much attention, energy and resources in preventative steps and measures that would lead to a healthier population where we would need less health care resources and dollars because, hopefully, less people would get sick.

This was the message that came through loud and clear to anyone who saw that compelling documentary put together by Wendy Mesley. To her great credit and that of CBC, it has been run and rerun many times to the point where most Canadians are probably aware of her tragic story. It took a great deal of courage for her to use her own personal experience to help make the point that environmental contaminants are a leading cause of many of the cancers. Who does not know someone in their personal life or within their circle of friends who has been diagnosed with or has passed away from cancer in recent years?

In closing, I was shocked to read that when my children's kids grow up, 50% of people will die of cancer. It never used to be like that. It is a recent phenomenon. It is since the industrial revolution and the petrochemical explosion of the post-war years that we are being exposed like never before to contaminants and pollutants.

I believe this is a common sense step. We will support Bill C-298 to put PFOSs on the virtual elimination list of CEPA.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Beaches—East York. I congratulate the member on this bill as it relates to an issue of extreme concern for Canadians and especially for our young people.

Bill C-298 would add the chemical PFOS to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The result of this is essentially that it would be illegal to have this chemical enter into the environment in any measurable fashion that could not be measured analytically and with the required level of sensitivity.

In familiarizing myself with the issue around PFOS, this was a matter of grave concern. It affects very directly the health and well-being of Canadians. It is for this reason that we must act in support of Bill C-298.

As vice-chair of the environment committee, which is currently reviewing the CEPA, I am particularly interest in this bill. Historically, PFOS could be located in quite a number of familiar products found in the average home. These include carpets, leather, textiles, paper and packaging, coating and additives, industrial and household cleaning products, pesticides and insecticides.

Clearly, this product in the past was found in quite a varied number of familiar items. As I noted, these kinds of product references are for the most part historic. A report prepared in the United Kingdom for the British Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirms that in that jurisdiction, as in most western nations, the use of these specific wide-ranging products is indeed historical; that is, it has ceased. Obviously this is the case because PFOS are dangerous.

However, to this day there are still products in which we will find PFOS. These include those associated with the photographic industry, semi-conductors, hydraulic fluids and also in firefighting materials. In fact, by way of example, in December 2004 there was a considerable debate following a fire in the Buncefield oil depot in Hertfordshire, England. I understand this fire was the largest in peacetime Britain.

During the course of the firefighting efforts, a considerable amount of foam was sprayed on the fire to extinguish it. The foam contained PFOS, which acts as a compound and allows the foam to spread more rapidly at higher temperatures. The result of this extensive use of the PFOS chemical compound was the contamination of the area's water table.

Following this realization, there was considerable discussion about the water being consumed by residents of the area. It is alleged that in Britain water inspectors, under considerable pressure due to that country's drought, relaxed the regulations on contaminated water.

The member of parliament for this constituency, including the town of Buncefield, was quite distressed with this and advocated for the ban on water containing any measurable quantity of PFOS. He stated:

I cannot see the logic that says, on the one hand, this stuff is so dangerous that it should be a crime to import it into the country at all and, on the other hand, it's all right for my constituents to drink it.

I might add that this member for Hemel Hempstead is a Conservative, a fact my colleagues across the floor might consider in their deliberations about whether they will support this bill.

The point of bringing the British experience to the House is that this is a dangerous chemical. It affects the water table and is a threat to the health of Canadians.

This debate is not by any means limited to Canada or the United Kingdom. Indeed in most developed countries this is a subject of considerable debate.

The Swedish government has proposed a global ban on this chemical. In this case, this ban has been proposed to the United Nations under the Stockholm Convention, which seeks to eliminate the so-called persistent organic pollutants.

Even the major global producer of PFOS, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, commonly known as 3M, voluntarily began to phase out the use of PFOS beginning in 2001. Similarly, the European Union has considered a proposal that would restrict or limit the use of PFOS among member states. One concern in the United Kingdom is that the EU proposal does not go far enough.

Furthermore, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has used these terms to describe PFOS: “persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to mammalian species”. These are serious concerns being expressed by a multitude of sources, including governments, multinational associations like the EU and OECD, environment groups, and even manufacturers themselves. PFOS is a significant risk to the environment and to human beings. It is pervasive in that the time it takes for it to leave the environment to which it is exposed is substantial, to say the least.

The threat to human health is real and must be acknowledged. Among the most common illnesses associated with PFOS exposure is bladder cancer; breast cancer; liver cancer; thyroid cancer; harm to the pancreas, the brain and immune systems; and there are also suggestions that the chemical interrupts the body's ability to produce cholesterol. The reality is that PFOS is difficult to remove from the human body. Studies suggest that it takes years for the substance to diminish within human beings.

With respect to this, studies indicate that the bioconcentration factor has values of up to 2,800 that have been measured in laboratories. This falls within the bioaccumulative criterion of the European Union. In other words, this chemical does not easily leave the system.

In fact, in Europe higher organisms, including seals, dolphins, whales, eagles and other creatures, have all been found to have PFOS within their metabolisms. The presence of these toxins within the human body is absolutely unacceptable and something which requires our attention.

The passage of Bill C-298 is a necessary step. I cannot imagine, quite frankly, why the government would be opposed to the passage of this bill. Clearly, the evidence suggests that PFOS is harmful to our environment and most certainly is harmful for us as human beings. We owe it to Canadians, particularly our children, to confront this issue and to stop the abuse of PFOS. At the very least, we must pass Bill C-298 which would add PFOS to the virtual elimination list.

Each day we fail to act on this issue we place people in our environment needlessly at risk. It is our responsibility as legislators and representatives of Canadians to take action when evidence supports the fact that there is an issue such as this. It is undeniable, based on the scientific evidence, that PFOS is harmful. It is toxic, pervasive and bioaccumulative and does not go away easily.

I will be supporting Bill C-298 because we need to take action on PFOS for the sake of all Canadians and most especially the sake of our children. I encourage very strongly all members of the House to do the right thing and vote to pass Bill C-298.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-298. Our government does not support this private member's bill for a number of reasons, particularly because it is a circumvention of the normal process here.

First of all, Bill C-298 impinges on the current legislative, regulatory powers and authorities of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health of the Government of Canada.

Under the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the ministers published on July 1, 2006 a final ecological screening assessment of the risks that the chemical substance PFOS poses to the environment. Concurrently, it was proposed that PFOS be added to schedule 1 of CEPA. Schedule 1 is the list of toxic substances for Canada. Also on July 1, 2006 the ministers published the proposed risk management strategy to manage those identified risks.

In effect, the ultimate aim of these actions is the total phase-out of PFOS in Canada. Environment Canada will take action to ensure that PFOS does not re-enter the Canadian marketplace and Environment Canada will also address the remaining sources of exposure.

These government actions will meet the spirit and the intent of virtual elimination, thereby meeting the intent of the private member's bill through the existing regulatory and legislative framework provided under CEPA, 1999.

As members of the House are aware, CEPA is an act that contributes to sustainable development through pollution prevention, and the protection of the environment and human health. CEPA is the primary federal legislation that provides for the assessment and the management of substances that may harm the environment or human health.

In particular, it provides for approaches to deal with harmful substances that are founded on strong science, transparency and also openness of process, while at the same time ensuring that precautionary and preventative measures can be taken to safeguard the health of Canadians and their environment. The current government's approach is following that law. Stakeholders and other interested parties would expect no less of us.

Provisions in CEPA call for the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to conduct a screening assessment of a substance to determine whether a substance is causing harm or may cause harm to human health or the environment. Once an assessment is complete, the ministers must propose one of the following three measures: either take no action in respect of the substance, add the substance to the priority substances list for more indepth assessment, or recommend that the substance be added to schedule 1 of the act and, when appropriate, the implementation of virtual elimination.

The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have been actively evaluating the science on PFOS in order to make sound decisions concerning the risks PFOS could pose and the most suitable risk management actions to take. We have been talking to stakeholders as well.

The assessment was undertaken because scientific evidence that has become available since the end of the 1990s has shown that PFOS is now found everywhere in the environment. Notably, and of particular interest for Canada, it has also been found in remote regions such as the Arctic. In fact, science was showing that some of the highest concentrations in organisms were being found in Arctic animals.

The CEPA screening assessment of PFOS has concluded that PFOS is persistent. It accumulates in organisms such as polar bears and can harm a variety of wildlife species. Fortunately, concentrations of PFOS currently found in the environment are at levels that should not pose a risk to human health.

As I mentioned previously, the process of risk assessment is conducted in an open and transparent fashion to make scientifically sound and credible recommendations.

For instance, the methods used in the risk assessment under CEPA follow publicly available technical guidance using methods that have been adopted internationally. In addition, the assessment that was prepared by Environment Canada and Health Canada was reviewed by scientists and other experts from academia, industry, and domestic and international government agencies.

The draft assessment of PFOS was published in October 2004 to solicit comments from stakeholders and the public at large. Comments and additional information received through these consultations were carefully considered in producing a final ecological screening assessment document.

The final assessment concluded that PFOS meets criteria established under section 64(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The assessment also concluded that PFOS was persistent and bioaccumulative.

The final assessment concluded that PFOS did meet the definition of toxic under CEPA, 1999. That is important to note, that it did meet that definition of toxic.

PFOS, even while it bioaccumulates, does not bioaccumulate to the level stipulated under the CEPA 1996 persistent and bioaccumulation regulations. Accordingly, we cannot apply the virtual elimination criteria under CEPA, 1999.

That has not the stopped the government from taking action in meeting the spirit and the intent of virtual elimination. Our proposed actions under the risk management strategy are aimed at that very same objective.

Under CEPA the government can take a range of actions to protect the environment and human health from substances, such as PFOS.

Bill C-298 would disrupt the risk management process that is currently underway. That is our major objection to the private member's bill before us today.

Under the existing and regulatory framework, the department must propose, in consultation with stakeholders, strategies and approaches to control PFOS and to ensure the protection of the health of Canadians and their environment. In order to fulfill that commitment, the department published a proposed risk management strategy for PFOS.

The strategy proposes that these substances be added to the prohibition of certain toxic substances regulations, 2005, and that would result in a prohibition on the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of these substances, and products or formulations containing these substances.

In addition to working through CEPA to assess and manage PFOS, Canada is actively discussing the environmental impacts of PFOS in international forums. Canada is working to ensure that work done internationally is consistent with and supportive of actions being considered by Canada.

Canada is actively discussing the appropriateness of including PFOS in international agreements that would lead to major restrictions in the manufacture, use or release of PFOS globally. This is being done through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution and also the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants.

Canada will continue to engage our international partners in global action on PFOS to complement our domestic action. Supporting these efforts is critical to addressing the long range transport of PFOS into the Canadian environment.

The government is very committed to the control of toxic substances and pollution of the environment. I assure members that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure the continued protection of the Canadian environment.

All together, these government actions combine to meet the spirit and the intent of virtual elimination and already meet the objective of the hon. member's private member's bill.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government does not support Bill C-298 for a number of reasons, some of which my colleague has already touched upon.

On July 1, Environment Canada established a quick management strategy for PFOS, which proposes that these substances be added to the prohibition of certain toxic substance regulations. This strategy would meet the intent of the private member's bill by prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale and import of the products containing PFOS. Effectively, the process already in place by the government's actions will meet the spirit and the intent of virtual elimination more quickly than what is being proposed by Bill C-298.

At the first hour of debate for Bill C-298 on June 15, the hon. member for Beaches—East York expressed concerns that the government's response on PFOS should be speedy and adequate. The hon. member suggested that this would not be achieved through existing regulatory processes.

I would like to explain that the current time clock requirements, as established legally under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by the Government of Canada, under the current regulatory process, if a substance has been found to be a toxin through a screening assessment, and when that substance has been proposed for addition on the list of toxic substances, a proposed regulation or instrument establishing the preventive or controlled actions for managing the substance must be developed within 24 months. Within these 24 months, the proposal must be established in the Canada Gazette Part I for a 60 day comment period. Once proposed, the minister has a further 18 months to finalize the regulation or instrument.

As members can see, the minister's obligation under the Environmental Protection Act is to act in a timely manner to control the toxic substance. However, let me clarify that the government intends to act much faster than the maximum time frames prescribed by CEPA.

As I mentioned earlier, the government published a risk management strategy on July 1 which outlines the government's intention to develop a regulation under CEPA to prohibit PFOS in Canada. The next step is the regulatory process that will publish proposed regulations in Part I of the Canada Gazette, which the government intends to do by December. Following the mandatory 60 day consultation period after the publication of the proposed regulations, the government will work to finalize the regulations on PFOS so that they are in place as quickly as possible.

In the case of PFOS, the enactment of Bill C-298 would require the Minister of the Environment to add PFOS to the virtual elimination list of CEPA within nine months of coming into force. At that time, the minister must prescribe the quantity and concentration of PFOS that may be released into the environment in order to achieve virtual elimination. After a further nine months, the release concentration would be set out in regulation.

Effectively, Bill C-298 is proposing an additional 18 month timeline. That is longer than what is required by the regulatory process that is already underway by this government.

Virtual elimination has a specific meaning under CEPA as laid out in section 65(2). It is the reduction of releases to the environment of a substance to a level below which this release cannot be accurately measured. Virtual elimination specifically applies to the release of a substance as a result of human activities and does not apply to the presence of a substance.

Technically, the implementation of regulations controlling the release of PFOS into the environment would be problematic. This is due to the non-quantifiable sources such as landfills and sewage treatment plants. The availability and the cost of end of pipe technology that would be required to be used by landfills and sewage treatment plants to control PFOS is still unknown.

Furthermore, the cornerstone of CEPA is pollution prevention that encourages reduction of pollutants at the source. Developing PFOS release regulations for landfills and sewage treatment plants is placing the burden of reducing emissions on the provinces and on the municipalities. The government is working on regulations for PFOS that would address the source of these chemicals; that is, the manufacture, import, sale and use here in Canada.

The prohibition of PFOS at the source will ultimately result in the reduction of releases at landfills and sewage treatment plants.

In addition, the proposal to regulate the concentration of PFOS released from municipal landfills and waste water treatment facilities would require careful analysis to identify the availability of technology to capture or reduce PFOS from these sources and to determine if a release concentration regulation is the most practical and cost effective means of protecting the environment.

As such, Bill C-298 would not likely expedite the current regulatory process but may in fact obstruct it further.

It is expected that the actions as proposed in the risk management strategy published by the Department of the Environment on July 1, will achieve the same results as virtual elimination to protect the environment and will meet the spirit of the bill through the prohibition of the manufacture, use, sale and import of these substances and these products or formulations containing these substances.

Furthermore, it is expected that the regulations currently being developed by the government to prohibit PFOS will be completed quicker than what is being proposed in Bill C-298.

The proposed risk management strategy also completed the required 60 day consultation period with stakeholders. Stakeholders, including public, industry, non-governmental organizations and provincial and territorial governments, used this formal opportunity to provide comment. Stakeholders will have additional opportunities to provide input on the proposed regulations for PFOS which are expected to be published in December.

In addition, Canada's actions on PFOS are in step and consistent with international actions and activities. Canada's proposed actions also include working with international partners for a harmonized approach to manage the international issues surrounding PFOS as a persistent and organic pollutant, POP, as well as conducting environmental and biota monitoring to ensure that Canada's risk management strategy objectives are indeed met.

It is clear, therefore, that all of these proposed actions together will achieve the objective of virtual elimination as proposed by the private member's bill as effectively as possible under the current legislative and regulatory process.