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

This enactment requires the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to make, within nine months after the coming into force of this enactment, a regulation to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List compiled under subsection 65(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 31, 2006, your committee has considered and held hearings on the subject matter of Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and agreed on Thursday, May 10, 2007, to report it with amendments.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I would first like to make an opening statement, and then we'll be standing clause 2 and moving to clause 3, which is the meat of the change. It would be more logical to approach it that way.

I'd like to begin by thanking Ms. Minna for her efforts and hard work on Bill C-298, dealing with perfluorooctane sulfonate, which is known as PFOS. Her bill would require the government to take action on PFOS, a substance that was at one time used in all kinds of products, such as stain, grease, and water repellants.

The government is in full agreement that action should be taken on PFOS. That's why we moved swiftly last year to put PFOS on the list of toxic substances under CEPA and to publish proposed regulations to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or import of PFOS or PFOS-containing products. We expect to finalize these regulations later this year.

There are two notable time-limited exceptions to the prohibition in the government's regulations. They are a five-year phase-out period for the use of PFOS in fire-fighting foams and electroplating processes--chrome-plating processes. These are consistent with the most stringent actions taken in other jurisdictions. The government also acknowledges that the weight of evidence suggests that PFOS is a substance that can accumulate in the environment and in animals. For that reason, we're supportive of Ms. Minna's efforts to add PFOS to the virtual elimination list, the VE list.

However, adding a substance to the VE list under CEPA comes with a requirement to develop a kind of regulation called a release-limit regulation, which will not, in this case, offer additional protection to the environment or human health. The right kind of regulation for a substance like PFOS is a prohibition--turning off the tap--and that's what we're proposing.

As we heard in the CEPA review, there are issues with the virtual elimination provisions in CEPA. We are proposing the amendments that would allow the government to add PFOS to the VE list without creating the obligation to develop a release-limit regulation. Our amendments would ensure that a number of substances related to PFOS would also be addressed. The government-proposed prohibition regulation would also apply to PFOS salts. This bill currently does not address those PFOS salts, so these additional substances would be added and would be in clause 3.

I'd like to stand clause 2 and move to clause 3, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll begin with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, pursuant to order of reference of Wednesday, November 1, 2006.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), clause 1 will be postponed to the end.

I believe, Mr. Warawa, you have a motion regarding clauses 2 and 3.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I move the motion that we consider committee business quickly before we go to Bill C-298.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Normally, these would be dealt with in camera, so we would have to clear the room and turn off the TV cameras. We can do that, or we can simply get Bill C-298 done and get on.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have on today's agenda, under committee business, and I'm glad to see it, the subcommittee's report on the agenda. I don't think it'll take long to consider this, so I want to move immediately that we consider committee business quickly before we get to Bill C-298. I understand this is a mere procedural motion and not a debatable one. I think we would be able to dispose of this very quickly indeed, given our meeting yesterday.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I would second what I just heard from Monsieur Bigras. I was not present when the committee business you rhymed off, Mr. Chair, was discussed. I think a number of the subjects that are being foreseen are important, but they're just not as important as some of the other subjects we ought to be dealing with. What's changed between then and now, of course, is what is happening in this country on climate change, what is happening in this country now in terms of the debate on the response to climate change.

We have some really important drop-dead dates. Ms. Minna's bill, Bill C-298, has to be done by June 5. We have to report back to the House on the estimates by May 31. I would suggest that estimates are more important than coal-bed methane. I would suggest that estimates are more important than a garbage meeting. I would suggest that talking, as I put forward on this motion, about where we're going on climate change and about the analysis backstopping the government's plan is more important than some of the subjects that were chosen from a list, short or long.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I've tried to do that, Mr. Chair, in the motion that's been tabled here today. I've worked around deadlines, drop-dead dates, reporting times, estimate challenges, deadlines for Bill C-298, and so on. I've tried to weave most of this into the motion that's in play.

I know that, theoretically, we're only supposed to have five meetings left in May. There are strong rumours circulating that the government intends to have the House rise earlier than planned. What I'm saying is that I've tried to reflect most of this in a lot of thought that went into this motion before us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I did point out to you that we did have a rough one here, which I'll just go through quickly. It's not written in stone, obviously. I'm quite happy to meet with one member from each party.

Basically, of course, we have put off Bill C-298. It is hoped that we could deal with that on Thursday and thus get that private member's bill dealt with.

As I mentioned, on May 15 we have CO₂ sequestration, and on May 17 we have my favourite subject, garbage gasification.

I would then propose that our next meeting date would be Tuesday, May 29. Hopefully, we could get the minister, which would accomplish what Mr. McGuinty—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My hope would be—because I haven't seen the same sort of interest in Bill C-298, if that's a fair word to use—that if you've done what I as chair have instructed you to do, we'll be through Bill C-307 fairly quickly and possibly even have time to get to Bill C-298. That's what I would attempt to do, to get us back on schedule.

We have arranged witnesses for our next sessions. We hate to start changing air tickets, and so on. Some people have already adjusted to meet what we've asked them to do.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for your comments--from the chair, and also from the members in the committee. There is a willingness on behalf of the government to find common ground.

For clarification, on Thursday, then, we will continue with Bill C-307; and Bill C-298 will be on Tuesday of the next week. Is that correct?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to requesting an extension of 30 sitting days under Standing Order 97.1(1) to consider Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Members of the committee, the purpose of our meeting is that in order to deal with Bill C-298 and Bill C-307, we need the committee to agree to a 30-day extension, which I then do the paperwork on and report to the House, and that gives us the 30 days.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I was a little disappointed that this motion cut into the time for private members' business. I think Mr. Cullen's Bill C-307 is an important bill, and we had to cut the discussion short. We all had to reduce the amount of questioning time to be able to deal with this motion before us.

Bill C-298, PFOS, is another very important private member's bill. We had to cut back discussion on both these bills to deal with this.

Mr. McGuinty has said he's doing this to clear up the confusion. I don't believe there is confusion in the committee. The committee can choose to discuss whatever we want. We've been notified that the minister will be here to answer questions on whatever we want to ask him. So the motion is redundant, and it tragically cut into valuable time to deal with private members' business. I don't believe there's confusion around this table.

[John Moffet]

Bill C-298 requires the minister to do three things: first, add PFOS to the VE list; second, specify a level of quantification; and third, make regulations prescribing the quantity or concentration that may be released into the environment.

My testimony earlier suggested that the latter two things won't add value. Developing an LOQ won't do anything in the context of the prohibition regulations, nor will creating release regulations, which could specify any amount and which could be addressing any or all aspects of release or sources of release. The statute's very vague.

So, again, I come back to the possible international symbolic importance of adding a substance to the VE list. The department wouldn't have any objection to limiting the bill to that step.