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

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Maria Minna  Liberal

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Third reading (House), as of June 6, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)

Similar bills

C-298 (39th Parliament, 2nd session) Law Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-298s:

C-298 (2022) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (economic substance)
C-298 (2021) National School Food Security Strategy Act
C-298 (2016) An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting hours — Pacific time zone)
C-298 (2013) An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (lump sum)
C-298 (2011) An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (lump sum)
C-298 (2010) Corporate Social Responsibility of Mining Corporations Outside Canada Act

Votes

June 6, 2007 Passed That Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have put this bill forward. Bill C-298 seeks to eliminate a very harmful chemical from the environment to protect the health of Canadians.

This chemical is recognized around the world as a toxic substance. It is not new. In fact, 3M Corporation stopped manufacturing this substance some time ago and Sweden has called for a global ban on PFOS already. The United States has done the same thing and has stopped using it.

PFOS is persistent in the environment for long periods of time. At the beginning of my statement I said that it was an inherently toxic substance. It is also bioaccumulative, which means it stays in the body for years. In fact, if one were to stop using it as of this moment, it would take eight years to eliminate the substance from one's body. Children are especially affected. It is used widely enough for serious risk to human exposure.

The list that I have just enunciated contains the criteria that need to be matched to determine if a chemical is a threat to human health. It should be regulated because PFOS meets all of the criteria I have just mentioned in terms of its toxicity, being bioaccumulative and so on.

Listing PFOS as a toxic chemical in schedule 1 of CEPA does not eliminate the chemical from the environment. Instead, it just sets the stage for more consultation and comment. The studies have been done. Environment Canada and Health Canada agree that the only way to deal with PFOS is through virtual elimination. That was their recommendation in 2004, so I cannot see how it would change at this time.

Also, in the first hour of debate on this bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment stated, regarding the assessment period of listing PFOS under schedule 1 of CEPA, 1999:

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.

That was part of the government's own statement. This is what the hon. member said and yet the government does not want to eliminate PFOS from the environment. That is totally irresponsible. Listing PFOS under schedule 1 of CEPA, 1999, and virtually eliminating it is not the same thing.

I hope the government decides to take the health of Canadians and the protection of the environment seriously and support my bill. However, with the joke that is its so-called environment plan, I doubt anything serious about the environment will come from the government.

Government members have stated themselves in their own statements that this substance is bioaccumulative and inherently toxic. What else do we need to know in order to eliminate it altogether? I believe this bill does that and I would ask the rest of the House to support it because it is one thing we can do for the environment.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie

Is the House ready for the question?

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

On No.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie

All those opposed will please say nay.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2006 / 6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 1, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed from October 26 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.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the second reading stage of Bill C-298 under private member's business.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thought we might have unanimous consent to pass the motion before the House but I see the sponsor would like a standing vote.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the sponsor is amenable and, if it is unanimous, I would ask that you seek consent to unanimously support this wonderful private member's bill by the member for Beaches—East York.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member for Beaches—East York give her consent for unanimous consent?