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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Moffet, could you make a recommendation or advise the committee on what would be appropriate tools within Bill C-298?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Well, I'm not sure that we've proposed any amendments as to how to change it. I think we're pretty happy with it the way it is. We understand there will be a statutory requirement for the moment, if you put it on the virtual elimination list, to look at the level of quantification before you look at release limits.

Although that isn't necessarily appropriate, as Environment Canada has said, for PFOS where it's in consumer products, that will be completely appropriate for the use of it in the chrome-plating and electroplating sector, if we're going to continue to allow that usage.

I don't think at the moment that PollutionWatch has a proposal for amending Bill C-298. We think that adding it to the virtual elimination list on top of the prohibitions is a rational approach.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I'd also like to thank the Honourable Maria Minna, who is the author of Bill C-298, for bringing this bill to this committee.

The focus of my questioning is to provide the right tools to deal with PFOS. I think that's the intent of Dr. Khatter and also the staff here. Environment Canada has said we need to get rid of PFOS, and right now its use is being prohibited.

What we see in Bill C-298--and Dr. Khatter has a recommendation--is that PFOS should be on the virtual elimination list. We've heard from Mr. Moffet that that may not be the best tool or the most practical way of dealing with it.

I would like specific recommendations from Dr. Khatter and Mr. Moffet as to how they would change Bill C-298 to be the tool that achieves what we all want to see happen here.

[John Moffet]

If he leaves, it's not because you've offended him.

Thank you.

Let me start by stating very simply that the government completely supports the need to address PFOS. Any debate that you see this morning is not about PFOS, and it's not about the need to get rid of PFOS. What we're talking about this morning are some fairly technical issues.

Dr. Khatter suggested that PFOS should be added to the virtual elimination list, but he also suggested that one of the problems we're encountering with this very bill highlights the problems that we have with the virtual elimination list.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting, but I understood him to say that we should be eliminating the “level of quantification requirement” in CEPA that is associated with the virtual elimination list provisions at the moment, and that we should be allowing prohibition, or a prohibition regulation, as a means for implementing virtual elimination.

I agree 100% with that position. Unfortunately, that's the CEPA that we'd like to see, but not the CEPA that we have today. The CEPA that we have today says that if we add something to the virtual elimination list, we have to develop a level of quantification and we have to have a ministerial release limit regulation, notwithstanding the fact that we may already have prohibited the substance through a governor-in-council regulation.

That's what Bill C-298 would have us do. Despite the fact that the government has introduced a regulation to prohibit the substance, this bill would require us to develop a level of quantification and another regulation to limit its releases from products. It's our position that those two extra steps—a level of quantification and a release limit regulation—will simply be make-work projects and will not add any value to the environment or to human health.

That was not the case when this bill was introduced, to Ms. Minna's credit. When this bill was introduced in May of last year, the government had not added this substance to the list of toxic substances and we had not introduced a regulation. Since then, however, the government did add PFOS and its salts and its precursors to the list of toxic substances. The government did this in December 2006.

In the same month, the government introduced a proposed regulation and published that regulation in part I of the Canada Gazette. That regulation would prohibit the import, manufacture, use, and sale of PFOS, its salts, and its precursors, as well as any products containing those substances.

As Dr. Khatter explained, that regulation would allow four critical use exemptions. It's our understanding that these four exemptions are the same exemptions that the United States EPA and the European Union have allowed. Those are the two jurisdictions that have actually implemented regulations to address these substances.

The four exemptions are as follows. The first is a five-year exemption for fume suppressants for the metal-plating sector. These are needed until alternatives are in use throughout this sector. We need to suppress fumes because those fumes contain other dangerous substances, such as hexavalent chromium. Here we have a classic trade-off of one bad substance for another. We recognize the need to eliminate PFOS, as do the other jurisdictions. What we're doing is allowing a very clear timeframe within which to implement, to purchase and install, the technology and processes needed to use alternative fume suppressants.

The second is a five-year exemption on the use of existing stocks of firefighting foam. You can't buy any new firefighting foam. As for the stuff that you got from the fire stations or the large institutions, you can continue to use that material for up to five years, after which, even if you still have it, you have to get rid of it. You certainly can't buy any new firefighting foams that contain PFOS.

The third exemption is for photographic material and semiconductor devices for which critical use exemptions have been granted in jurisdictions where these devices are manufactured.

The final exemption is for the sale and use of manufactured items that were manufactured or imported into Canada before the regulations came into force. We're not asking people to take products off the shelf. If they're on the shelf, if they've been manufactured or imported, we're just phasing them out, essentially. You can't bring in any new products. As I explained, this regulation was published in Canada Gazette, part I, in December of 2006. We're now working under a timeline to bring those regulations into force this calendar year.

So why is that enough? Why don't we also need the steps that Ms. Minna outlines in Bill C-298?

First, the government regulation would prohibit not just PFOS but all chemicals that degrade into PFOS. The current bill is limited to PFOS, and the government's regulation goes beyond it. Obviously that would be a simple amendment to the bill.

Second, the government regulation goes to the source of the problem. It would prohibit sources of PFOS in Canada. The key route for the release of PFOS into the environment is through the breakdown of consumer products over time. So instead of regulating releases of PFOS from those products, the government bill would go to the source of the problem and prohibit its use in those products.

Third, it would be easier to enforce the government regulation. The government regulation, as I've explained, focuses on the use of PFOS, and would prohibit the use of PFOS. That's something we can monitor and enforce. A release-limit regulation, on the other hand, would require us to focus on products, and look at whether those products are releasing the substance. That means measuring PFOS coming off of manufactured articles, as opposed to just saying you can't use it any more. It would be much more cumbersome to enforce.

Finally, it's our position that at least two of the three actions the bill requires won't add value to health and the environment.

The bill would require the Minister of the Environment to develop a release-limit regulation, as I've explained, and it's our view that this would be redundant. We're prohibiting the use. You don't need to also regulate releases. If you can't use it, there won't be any releases.

The bill would also require a level of quantification, or LOQ. The only reason you need a level of quantification is to develop a release regulation. The premise of the virtual elimination regime is that you develop a level of quantification, which is the lowest level we can measure using routine but sensitive analytical methods. Then you put that in the regulation, and say that you can't have any more than that being released.

Well, if we're not developing a release regulation, we don't need the LOQ. It costs a lot of money to develop an LOQ, so let's force the government to spend that money only if we think it will add value.

The third thing the bill would do would be to add that substance to the virtual elimination list. Now, there may be some symbolic value in adding the substance to the virtual elimination list. As Dr. Khatter has stated, there are international efforts under way to add PFOS to the Stockholm Convention, which would have influence in other countries, including developing countries that continue to use PFOS. If putting the substance on a list in Canada would further those international efforts, and if the committee is of that view, then certainly there may be some merit there. But it's our position that in terms of actually requiring the government to take those extra steps of developing a second regulation and a level of quantification, it would not go any further than our current regulation would go, which is to completely prohibit the substance.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter, Environmental Defence Canada]

Thank you, Chair, committee members.

We don't have much time, so we'll be brief. We're talking today about Bill C-298, which is a bill to virtually eliminate perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act says that any toxic substance that is mostly due to human activity and is persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic is supposed to be virtually eliminated. PFOS is extremely persistent and bioaccumulative, more so than even our famous persistent organic pollutants DDT and PCBs. It stays in the environment for decades, and the human body takes over eight years to clear just half of it.

Human studies have found increased rates of bladder cancer, male reproductive cancers, liver cancer, and multiple myeloma. That's in worker studies and in studies of people living around factories using PFOS.

Animal studies have shown that PFOS harms the thymus, the pancreas, the brain, and the immune system. What really alarmed the United States Environmental Protection Agency when they first looked at PFOS was that when they gave PFOS to pregnant rats, it killed the pups, their kids. When they lowered the level of PFOS enough so that the pups survived, many of the grandkids didn't survive, meaning that the majority of the pups' pups died. The EPA found this to be a rare finding, and they found it extremely alarming. At the time, they concluded that

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

The United States banned PFOS in 2000, with certain exceptions. Since then, Sweden has called for a global ban, nominating PFOS as a persistent organic pollutant under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, again with exemptions for semi-conductors and photography for the moment.

We were happy in the spring of 2006 to see this private member's bill, six years after the United States banned PFOS. We saw this as an attempt to catch up with our neighbours. Since then, the government has announced its own prohibition, with exemptions, and the government's assessment under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, found PFOS to be persistent and toxic, but not to be bioaccumulative. This is because of the way the regulations for bioaccumulation are written. They didn't anticipate that substances like PFOS would bioaccumulate in new and novel ways, or what we're finding out are new ways.

Even though PFOS is possibly the most bioaccumulative chemical we know, it has been declared not bioaccumulative in Canada. This private member's bill will declare PFOS a candidate for virtual elimination, as it should be as a persistent bioaccumulative and inherently toxic substance.

There is concern about a lack of alternatives in some uses: in making semi-conductors, for certain photography uses, and for chrome and electroplating. These exemptions are found in the proposed prohibition regulations. We think the government should take another serious look at the need for these exceptions, always keeping in mind that health and a healthy environment need to come first. In particular, there should be another look at chrome and electroplating. Half of the platers in Canada don't use PFOS, so it's hard for us to see why the others cannot switch over.

PollutionWatch believes that PFOS should be listed for virtual elimination, as it meets the criteria in real life. What the government needs is more flexibility in how virtual elimination is done. As raised before this committee at the review of the Canadian Environment Protection Act, virtual elimination needs to be fixed. We need to eliminate the level of quantification that is making virtual elimination unworkable.

As well, there should be the option of using prohibition as a tool for virtual elimination, so that we can put something on the virtual elimination list because it's persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic. The prohibition should be a justifiable way of making that elimination happen. The goal of virtual elimination, after all, is to continuously work towards getting rid of PFOS. In that light, any exemptions to a prohibition need to be temporary.

The objective is to eventually eliminate manufacturer import, use, and release. There is a global movement to do this, as I've said, with Sweden having nominated PFOS to be listed under the Stockholm Convention. Canada should be helping by vocally supporting this nomination internationally and by eliminating PFOS at home.

Finally, just as a comment, the PFOS case has revealed problems with our bioaccumulation regulations. The government should amend these regulations to reflect what we know today about bioaccumulation.

In summary, we ask the government to add PFOS to the virtual elimination list, to fix virtual elimination, to amend the bioaccumulation regulations, and to be a leader in ridding the world of PFOS.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have a quorum.

I would just like to review quickly with members what I hope to accomplish.

Obviously we have two private members' bills that we're looking at today: Bill C-298 and Bill C-307. As you can see, we've allocated 45 minutes for each of these bills. So I would like to ask members, if they would agree, to go to five minutes on the questions on the first round instead of the normal ten minutes. That way we can get the maximum number of questions.

Our other question will be that we have now scheduled Bill C-298 from 11 o'clock until 11:45, with the possibly of extending that 15 minutes if necessary, due to the motion already having been dealt with. We'll wait until Mr. McGuinty gets here. Mr. Regan will talk to him; he understands what I'm trying to do.

I will hold you to five minutes. Perhaps we could start with Bill C-298. As you can see, we have witnesses and we have department people here as well. So if we could keep it to five minutes, and I would ask our witnesses as well if they could keep it as short as possible, five minutes ideally, then we will have the maximum time for questions and can get through both these bills.

Perhaps you could begin, Mr. Khatter.

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.

Phthalate Control Act

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-307, introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, seeks to prohibit the use of phthalates in certain products. Last week, I commented on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which Bill C-298 seeks to add to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

My argument last week was based on two studies conducted at great expense by private organizations to determine whether 68 toxic chemicals were present in blood and urine samples.

The first study, conducted by Environmental Defence and entitled “Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families” included 13 individuals—6 adults and 7 children.

The second was mentioned by Kenneth Cook of the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., during his testimony before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The results of these two private studies—and I use the word “private” because they had to assume the cost of the analyses themselves—are alarming. In the first study, 68 chemicals were analyzed and 13 individuals participated at a cost of $10,000 per person for a total private investment of $130,000. As for the second study, Mr. Cook said that the 10 blood samples cost $10,000 each for a total of US$100,000.

In other words, when an individual conducts a study he has to invest over $100,000 to get results. Despite this significant investment, subsequent criticism is often on the statistical reliability or the sample coverage.

I was saying that the alarming results of both studies led me to conclude that the toxins absorbed or accumulated by adults, 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.

The results of the analyses of the 68 chemicals studied confirmed that on average 32 chemicals were detected in the parents and 23 chemicals were detected in the children who volunteered for the first study.

What we do not know about is the synergy in this cocktail of toxins in the organism. In chemical reactions there are reducing agents, oxidizing agents and buffers. How do all these chemicals react with one another? Do some chemicals wait for certain others to reach certain concentration levels in the blood to start a reaction produced by another latent toxic chemical? Who knows? No one knows because such in-depth research is rarely ever done.

There are many unknowns when it comes to the interaction of toxins in the human body. Far too often, medicine detects results without knowing the cause: cancer appears, fertility decreases, fetal weight drops, a number of cases affect childhood development, respiratory problems increase—especially asthma in young children—as does the incidence of diabetes.

Who is responsible for this? Is a combination of toxic chemicals responsible? Medicine cannot pinpoint the guilty party.

As for phthalates, Bill C-307 proposes limiting, as much as possible, the exposure of vulnerable populations to such products based on the precautionary principle.

By virtue of that principle, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an activity or product could cause serious and irreversible harm to human health or the environment, measures must be taken to mitigate the risk until the effects can be documented. Such measures may include, if a certain activity is at issue, reducing or ending the activity or, if a product is at issue, banning the product.

Accordingly, PVC-based soft materials must be kept away from children's mouths. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers are obligated, under Health Canada regulations, to ensure that soft plastic teethers and rattles do not contain phthalates. The same is true for children's educational toys. The full array of products intended for commercial and private use is far too extensive to list here tonight. Suffice it to say that the majority of items made from PVC-based plastic, whether rigid, semi-rigid or soft, contain phthalates.

Furthermore, I do not mean merely traces of phthalates in these products, since certain products can contain up to 50%. These include the plastic bags we use everyday, food wrap, plastic rain gear, your shower curtain, Mr. Speaker, waterproof boots, garden hose, children's bath toys and intravenous blood bags. In short, phthalates are everywhere in our daily lives.

We agree with the principle of this bill. We believe, however, that some of the bans proposed in this bill are already effective enough, while others perhaps go too far, considering that practical, effective and safe replacement products are not available. Accordingly, we will propose some amendments at the committee stage.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.