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.

Royal Assent

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 17, 2008

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Marshall Rothstein, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 17th day of April, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bills assented to are Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)--Chapter No. 12; Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999--Chapter No. 13; Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act--Chapter No. 14; and Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Public Service Employment Act--Chapter No. 15.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have placed before the House Bill C-298 on the virtual elimination of perfluorooctane sulfonate, PFOS, as we call it. Also I want to thank all members of the House for their support of this bill. It is indeed a good feeling that, hopefully, one of the bad substances will be eliminated.

I concur with the hon. member who spoke earlier that it would be wonderful if the government would bring back the larger bill, the climate change bill, which all parties worked on prior to the prorogation of the House. This would allow us to address the overall problem of climate change in a more aggressive manner together. Members of the House have to work together because otherwise we cannot succeed.

In this particular case the interesting thing to note is that 3M, which is a private corporation, stopped manufacturing this product quite some time ago, having acknowledged a problem with it very early on. Sweden has called for a global ban on PFOS for some time now. As mentioned by other members, the reason is very clear. This is a very toxic chemical. It can cause breast cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer. It also affects the immune system and other things.

Because of its harmful effects and the levels currently found in our environment, Environment Canada and Health Canada recommended in October 2004 that the substance be defined as toxic and scheduled for virtual elimination from the environment, but that had not happened. I brought this bill forward because in the intervening time not a great deal had happened.

As I said, not only Sweden but the United States Environmental Protection Agency has called PFOS an unacceptable substance that should be eliminated to protect human health and the environment. Environment Canada agrees. Therefore, there is no reason to delay. Environment Canada has also determined that this chemical is inherently toxic and that it stays in the environment for extremely long periods of time. The tests have been done and the verdict has been in for some time.

This bill has received international attention on the issue of harmful chemicals. It is our hope that PFOS will be added to the Sweden Convention on Prohibited Organic Pollutants. We hope that the government will actually pursue that. It is very important that that happen.

We have worked closely with Canadian environmental groups in drafting this bill. There is a great deal of support for it in the House and elsewhere.

An Environmental Defence Canada report released in June 2006 reported on the testing of five Canadian families, the parents, grandparents and children, for the presence of 68 toxic chemicals. This illustrates the urgency of the situation as there are many others out there. PFOS was found in every participant in the study and the children had higher levels than their parents. Children are more vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals because their bodies are growing and developing rapidly. This is extremely troubling.

Bill C-298 protects the health of our families and wildlife and helps to clean up our environment. I am pleased to see that this is one chemical which hopefully will be eliminated.

However, I would also urge the government to bring back the larger bill that all parties had agreed to prior to the summer break and prorogation so that we can actually address in a more aggressive way the whole climate change issue. In the process we could also address more quickly all other chemicals that are still in the system and have not yet been dealt with.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on private member's Bill C-298, the perfluorooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act that was developed by the member for Beaches—East York. I want to thank her for getting the issue on the agenda.

It is very important that we have looked at this particular chemical that exists in our environment and has, I believe, been misused over the years. It is a very serious issue. I am glad we have made some significant progress on virtually eliminating it or that we will be moving to that shortly.

It was interesting listening to the member for Nanaimo—Alberni who talked about the process that the committee went through in working on this bill, some of the compromises and give and take that was made to this legislation to make it possible to gain support I gather in all corners of the House. Certainly, we in the NDP are supporting this legislation. I think that shows the kind of work that can be done in the House of Commons on legislation.

I wish that we had been able to muster that same kind of non-partisan cross-party effort on the big environmental bills of our day. It would be great if we could bring back the clean air and climate change act that had that same kind of cooperation through committee. Every party was allowed to bring its ideas to the table. The final document, the rewritten bill, reflected the ideas of all political parties in this place. Sadly, the government has refused to put it back on the agenda.

While we are making progress on this very specific chemical, we are missing progress on that very important and large piece of work on climate change that all Canadians recognize as crucial. It is going to be a sad day if we do not make progress in this Parliament on that big issue.

I also want to mention that Bill C-298 is similar in its intent and work to one that we passed last night at third reading, another private member's bill, Bill C-307, from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the phthalate control act, which also sought to limit the use of a particular chemical that was harmful to our environment and to our health.

I think we have been making progress again on some very specific issues but it is too bad we cannot get the big issue of our day, the climate change issue, back on the agenda of this place and make some real progress there.

With regard to the specific bill before us, it mandates the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to make regulations that would keep the release of PFOS into the environment at a very low level where the substance actually cannot even be accurately measured. That is what it means to be put on the virtual elimination list. It is not being eliminated virtually, but it is going to be removed enough to a point where its presence in the environment is negligible. That is a very important step to take.

It seems that PFOS is one of those substances that seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a very popular substance when it was first introduced. It was used in many fabrics as a stain resistant substance, usually as a stain repellant. It was used in rugs, carpets, upholstery, clothing, food packaging, cleaners and in firefighting foams. It was used in very many places across our society. It was thought to be inert at the beginning.

Few tests were ever completed on the chemical's effects on people and wildlife and on the environment, but recently more testing has been done and it has been shown to have some very serious problems. For instance, animal testing was done. It was shown to be a carcinogen. It did cause certain kinds of cancers and damage to the immune system. That was an important step forward where we realized some of the harm that could be caused by PFOS.

This led, I think in the year 2000, to the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States banning the substance. It said that continued manufacture and use of PFOS represented an unacceptable technology that should be eliminated to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long term consequences. I know as well that Environment Canada and Health Canada agreed in their own studies and work on PFOS.

We also know that PFOS is bioaccumulative. It does not disappear; it persists in the environment once it is introduced there. That is a very serious consequence of the use of this particular chemical.

Environment Canada and Health Canada stated in the Canada Gazette:

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.

We know that it is a very difficult substance to eliminate now that we have introduced it into our environment. We know that its health effects are very serious as well. It is persistent, it is bioaccumulative and it is toxic, all good reasons why we should be eliminating its use in our society.

This is a very important step to take. I gather from reading the original speeches by the member for Beaches—East York on this that there are proposals to eliminate this substance globally. Sweden has proposed a global ban on PFOS as part of the persistent organic pollutants treaty, which is being discussed. I hope that Canada, given the steps that it seems we are about to take with it, will strongly support Sweden in those efforts because it is an action that needs to be taken.

We need to act quickly on this. Originally it looked as though it could take years for this to take place, even if we took the actions suggested in this legislation. We need to make sure this process is expedited so that PFOS is eliminated as soon as possible and not allowed to continue to do the harm it does to our health and the environment.

This bill points out some of the difficulties with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and how hard it is to get a harmful substance on the virtual elimination list. We are acting seven years after the Americans acted on this issue, which shows that our mechanisms are much slower, even though our own agencies such as Health Canada and Environment Canada conducted their own studies that showed the importance of taking this step.

I hope this bill will also improve our ability to react on other chemical substances that we should be concerned about for our health and the environment. I hope that this will be part of the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act so that we can make sure this weakness in our legislation and in our approach can be cleaned up and improved.

I am hoping that we are taking an important step. It sounds as though we may have unanimity in this place, as we did last night when we voted on final reading of Bill C-307. Everyone in the House agreed to that similar measure going forward.

As I conclude, I would still like to challenge members that even though we are making progress on these very specific chemical compounds, we must also make progress on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The best way for us in Parliament to do that would be to bring back the legislation that was worked on in the first session by all political parties, where all the ideas were brought to the table and a new piece of legislation was written. We need to get that back on the agenda of the House of Commons. I would urge the government to do that without delay. If we leave this Parliament without having moved in a significant way on climate change, we will have missed the important opportunity to do something significant for our environment and the citizens of Canada.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter the debate and to speak to Bill C-298, which is a very important act. Bill C-298 is an enactment that would require the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to make, within nine months after the coming into force, a regulation to add perflurooctane sulfonate, or as the member before mentioned, PFOS, as it is sometimes called to save the tongue a little twisting, and its salts to the virtual elimination list compiled under section 65(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The act may also be cited as the perflurooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act.

I am pleased to say that the government supports the bill.

The government is committed to taking strong action to protect Canadians and our environment from the possible harmful effects of chemical substances. That is why we announced, in December of last year, a new $300 million investment in the Government of Canada's chemicals management plan, a plan that will maintain Canada among the foremost leaders in chemical management internationally, and a plan that was well received both by industry and by the environmental and health groups. We are now implementing it in earnest.

One of the first substances to receive our attention, under the chemical management plan, was perflurooctane sulfonate, or PFOS. There is concern over this substance and what the government is doing about it domestically and with international partners.

When Bill C-298 was introduced last year, the government had not yet announced the chemical management plan or its proposed actions on PFOS. I therefore congratulate the member for Beaches—East York for bringing this issue forward. The bill has an important purpose, to recognize that PFOS is one of those substances that should be virtually eliminated because it can persist for long periods of time in the environment and it can accumulate in food chains. Substances with these characteristics are among the highest priority substances in our chemical management plan.

As PFOS is a high concern substance for which the weight of evidence supports that it is both persistent and bioaccumulative, the government supports the idea that it should be added to the list. However, as Bill C-298 was originally drafted, it would have not only required the addition of PFOS to the virtual elimination list under CEPA, but it would also have required the costly development of an ineffective approach to pursuing the objective of virtual elimination. The government therefore did not support the original wording of the bill.

To understand this more fully, it is important to understand both the requirement that would have been put into place and the principal route of entry of PFOS into the environment.

PFOS was used in formulations of stain and grease repellents that were applied to all kinds of fabrics, carpets, jackets, sofa covers, name it. It was also used to make firefighting foams more effective and to suppress fumes in certain industrial applications. This wide variety of uses meant that PFOS was entering the environment from thousands of very small sources.

However, since it is a commercial substance, intentionally added to things, we have the ability to stop it simply by putting in place a regulation that says we will not manufacture, import, sell or use the substance any more. That is what we have proposed to do under CEPA. We are expecting to finalize that regulation this year.

The bill would have required the government to develop and publish a level of quantification for PFOS. A level of quantification refers to the lowest amount of the substance that can be detected using sensitive but routine chemical analysis methods.

The bill would also have required the development of a regulation concerning the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment, either alone or in combination with any other substance, from any source or type of source, a type of regulation sometimes referred to as a release limit regulation.

The problem is in the case of a commercial substance like PFOS, it can be very difficult to define and regulate the sources of release. And, when considered in the context of our proposed regulation to prohibit the substance in Canada, it adds no value. Indeed, by prohibiting the production, import or use of PFOS, we will be acting to eliminate potential sources of its release.

I will also add that requirements to develop limits of quantification or release limit regulations are not specific to this bill. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act contains similar requirements to publish levels of quantification and develop release limit regulations for substances that are put on the virtual elimination list.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the same committee that considered this bill, has also just produced its report on the five year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In that report, the committee specifically identified three requirements as problematic. PFOS is a case in point. Moreover, the committee recommended that the act should recognize that prohibition regulations were an option toward achieving the objective of virtual elimination. We are proposing just that in the case of PFOS.

At committee, the committee therefore proposed several important changes to the bill. We still wanted to put PFOS on the virtual elimination list, but we did not want to create obligations to waste taxpayer money or complicate the regulatory environment with ineffective regulation. Working carefully with the member for Beaches—East York, we developed amendments such that the bill would still require the government to put PFOS on the virtual elimination list, but without the requirement to publish the level of quantification or develop a release limit regulation.

Another important amendment we made was to ensure that the bill would address the same substances the government had identified as priorities through its scientific risk assessment. The risk assessment identified PFOS itself, but also several related compounds, which are salts of PFOS, as toxic, persistent and biocumulative. Bill C-298 therefore was amended to address PFOS and its salts.

Finally, CEPA puts the onus of implementing the virtual elimination on both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. We therefore proposed an amendment to ensure that both ministers were identified in this case, both for consistency and because in the long run these persistent and biocumulative substances might be of concern to both people and to the environment.

I am pleased to say that the government supports the bill and will be very pleased to see this compound added to the virtual elimination list. It will improve the environment for Canadians and will take this substance virtually out of circulation, out of the bodies of Canadians and out of the environment, which will be good for all of us.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. In my earlier remarks I talked about when I was the vice-chair of the environment committee. My colleague should be aware that CEPA is a very important regulatory body and that this is not one of the chemicals that needs to go through a CEPA review.

Therefore, there is the relevancy of the environment committee, what we do about the environment, what action the government wants to take on the environment and its failure to show leadership on issues that affect global warming. This is all relevant to the issue of the environment. Bill C-298 is also about that. It is one piece of the larger pie on how to deal with environmental contamination and issues that affect our health.

Bill C-298 is a meaningful step forward. I am honoured to speak in support of the excellent bill introduced by the member for Beaches—East York and I encourage all members to support it as well. We are talking about our environment, our health, our future and that of our country.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me take this opportunity, and it is an opportunity that very few of us in this House sometimes take, to congratulate, to honour and to pay homage to our colleagues who in fact do good work in this House. It is too easy for us in the House to criticize one another, but there are many of us who do good work on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of people across this country.

One of these of course is the hon. member for Beaches—East York who has an illustrious career both in defence of immigrants and refugees across the country, and of women's issues along with her care and passion about the environment.

One of these bills that she has introduced, her private member's Bill C-298, is such a bill. I would like to lend again my support and also to congratulate her and to pay homage to her for her long career of service to Canadians and to people across the country.

I am pleased once again to have this opportunity to speak on the issue of perfluorooctane use, specifically with respect to Bill C-298 introduced by my colleague, the member for Beaches—East York. This bill would add perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, to the list of chemicals on the virtual elimination list.

As I have done previously, I believe it is important to recognize the very real dangers of PFOS. The fact is that it never degrades and in fact this substance accumulates in the human body. Chemicals like PFOS are toxic to our bodies and to our environment. The government needs to take the action of supporting Bill C-298 as a necessary and prudent beginning.

Having served as the vice-chair of the environment committee, I heard a great deal of testimony on important environmental issues, including the need to expand the virtual elimination list. During my time on the committee, it was also obvious that the government will say and do anything in order to avoid taking real action on the environment.

While in opposition, the Conservatives called the Kyoto accord a socialist plot and fought against it publicly while disputing the signs of global warming. It is therefore not surprising that the Conservatives have cancelled successful and efficient environmental programs like the one tonne challenge.

The government claims that these programs were wasteful, despite the fact that the opposite position was taken by the independent Environment Commissioner. The government considers any investment in fighting global warming wasteful because it really does not consider global warming a problem. This is clearly a disconnect not only from what we on this side of the House know to be true but what the vast majority of Canadians know to be reality.

The Conservatives like to pretend that they are taking action on the environment, when in reality all they are doing is producing more hot air. In fact, they are on their third failed environmental plan since they have taken office. Moreover, when the House of Commons committee, including Conservative members, drafted a real and effective plan for the environment, the government did everything it could to obstruct the bill from becoming law.

How could it possibly get worse? Now we see the government has taken its environmental denial tour on the road. During the Commonwealth summit in Uganda, the Prime Minister was given the shameful credit for having derailed a plan that would have created binding targets.

What was his reason for this? The Prime Minister says it is because the plan did not include China or the United States. It is interesting to note that it was a Commonwealth meeting and neither of these two countries are even member states.

The Leader of the Opposition, indeed the member for Beaches—East York--

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the third time and passed.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I was pleased to be able to work with my colleagues to make this bill something that we can all support, and I am particularly pleased that we were able to strengthen it.

I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues on the environment committee about this bill. My assignment to the environment committee was one of the first bills I was able to get out of there, and that was a pleasure for me.

Bill C-298 seeks to add PFOS and its salts to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I am pleased to say that we are taking serious action on toxic substances.

As my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, mentioned earlier, our government introduced its chemicals management plan in December of last year as part of our commitment to taking strong action to protect Canadians and our environment from the possible harmful effects of chemical substances.

We invested $300 million in our chemicals management plan, a plan that will maintain Canada among the foremost leaders in chemicals management internationally. That plan was well received by both industry and environmental and health groups. We are now implementing it.

I will quote briefly from that plan. It states:

Chemical substances are everywhere around us—in the environment, our food, clothes, and even our bodies. Many of these chemical substances are used to improve the quality of our lives. Most of these chemical substances are not harmful to the environment or human health. However, some have the potential to cause harm, in certain doses, and should only be used when the risks are appropriately managed.

[Our] Chemicals Management Plan will improve the degree of protection against hazardous chemicals. It includes a number of new, proactive measures to make sure that chemical substances are managed properly.

We felt that PFOS was one of those substances we needed to take action on, and that is what we did. In fact, one of the first substances to receive our attention under that plan was PFOS.

My colleague has just explained why there is concern over this substance and what the government is doing about it domestically and with our international partners.

Bill C-298 has an important purpose, namely to recognize that PFOS is one of those substances that should be virtually eliminated, because it can persist for long periods of time in the environment, and it can accumulate in food chains. Substances with these characteristics are among the highest priority substances in our chemicals management plan.

As PFOS is a high concern substance for which the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that it is both persistent and bioaccumulative, the government supported the idea that it should be added to the list.

However, there were some issues with Bill C-298 as it was originally drafted. That is why the government proposed a series of important amendments.

The original bill would have not only required the addition of PFOS to the virtual elimination list under CEPA, but also have the costly development of an ineffective approach to pursuing the objective of virtual elimination. The government therefore could not support that original wording.

To understand this more fully, it is important to understand both the requirement that would have been put in place, and the principle route of entry of PFOS into the environment.

PFOS was used in formulations of stain and grease repellents that were applied to all kinds of fabrics such as carpets, jackets, sofa covers, just name it. As members heard from my colleague, it was also used to make firefighting foams more effective and to suppress fumes in certain industrial applications.

The wide variety of highly diffuse uses meant that PFOS was entering the environment from thousands of very small sources. However, since it is a commercial substance, intentionally added to things, we have the ability to stop it simply by putting in place a regulation that says we will not manufacture, import, sell or use the substance any more. That is what we have proposed to do under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and we expect to finalize that regulation this year.

The bill would have required the government to develop and publish a level of quantification for PFOS. A level of quantification refers to the lowest amount of the substance that can be detected using sensitive but routine chemical analysis methods.

The bill would have required the development of a regulation concerning the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment either alone or in combination with any other substance from any other source or type of source, a type of regulation sometimes referred to as a release limit regulation.

In the case of commercial substances like PFOS, the problem is it can be very difficult to define and regulate the sources of release. When considered in the context of our proposed regulation to prohibit the substance in Canada, it really adds no value. Indeed, by prohibiting the production, import or use of PFOS, we will be acting to eliminate potential sources of the release.

I would add that requirements to develop limits of quantification, or LOQs as they are called, or release limit regulations are not specific to this bill. CEPA contains similar requirements to publish LOQs and develop release limit regulations for substances that are put on the virtual elimination list.

However, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the same committee that considered this bill, has also produced its report on the five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In that report, the committee specifically identified these requirements as problematic. PFOS is a case in point. Moreover, the committee recommended that the act should recognize that prohibition regulations are an option toward achieving the objective of virtual elimination. We are proposing just that in the case of PFOS.

At committee, the government therefore proposed several important changes to the bill. We still wanted to put PFOS on the virtual elimination list, but we did not want to create obligations that would waste taxpayers' money or complicate the regulatory environment with ineffective regulations.

Therefore, we proposed amendments such that the bill will still require the government to put PFOS on the virtual elimination list, but without the requirement to publish a level of quantification, or develop a release limit regulation.

Another important amendment we made was to make sure that the bill addressed the same substances the government had identified as priorities through its scientific risk assessment. The risk assessment identified PFOS itself but also several related compounds, which are salts of PFOS as toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative. Bill C-298 therefore was amended to address PFOS and its salts.

Finally, CEPA put the onus of implementing virtual elimination on both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. We therefore proposed an amendment to this bill to make sure that both ministers were identified in this case, both for consistency and because in principle in the long run these persistent and bioaccumulative substances may be of concern to both people and the environment.

In conclusion, we are pleased that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development was able to amend this bill, to make it something that we can support. We are committed to taking action against toxic substances, and this is further proof that this government is a government of action.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Beaches—East York for her efforts in working with the committee to implement amendments that allowed the committee to successfully get this bill through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-298, an Act to add PFOS to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I would like to make it immediately clear that we are in favour of this bill, which aims, as I said, to add PFOS to the list of substances for virtual elimination. First of all, what is PFOS? The principal applications for PFOS and its precursors are for water, oil, soil and grease repellents for use on surface and paper-based applications, such as rugs and carpets, fabric and upholstery and food packaging, as well as use in specialized chemical applications, such as carpet spot removers, surfactants such as detergents, hydraulic fluids, mining and oil-well emulsifiers and other specialized chemical formulations.

In Canada, there is no known manufacture of perfluorinated alkyl compounds, including PFOS. Approximately 600 tonnes of perfluorinated alkyl compounds were imported into Canada. PFOS represent only a very small percentage of the total amount of perfluorinated alkyl compounds currently imported into Canada.

What are the effects of PFOS? 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 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 our colleagues said a few minutes ago, we know that as early as 2004, the government announced in Part I of the Canada Gazette that it intended 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. Unfortunately, to date, schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Act has yet to be amended to include PFOS. One might think that the government had heard from industry, asking that the government defer adding it to the list.

The real question we have to ask ourselves in studying this bill is why it took two years for the government to see the importance of adding this substance to the virtual elimination list. In the meantime, many people continued to have access to this substance, even though it is very clear that it has a harmful effect on the environment and biological diversity.

One has to wonder whether this long delay was due to a lack of will on the part of the administration, which was certainly under pressure by the industries concerned to delay designating PFOS as a toxic substance. It is unacceptable that this delay should be considered standard or due to red tape. It is indeed unacceptable to take nearly two years to restrict the use of a substance proven to be harmful. It is the federal government's duty to ensure that, once they have been assessed as harmful, substances are regulated without delay.

I would also like to mention phosphates in dishwasher and laundry detergents that are still available in our grocery stores. Why is the government taking so long to ban these phosphate-containing products when everyone knows that they are the main cause of a phenomenon that is affecting over 160 lakes in Quebec: cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae.

As everyone knows, on May 12, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development passed a Bloc Québécois motion to force the government to adopt regulations banning products containing phosphates. Unfortunately, all summer, the government turned a deaf ear to a majority of parliamentarians demanding this ban. During that time, more of Quebec's lakes than ever before have been contaminated.

I would like to assure my colleagues that in the next few days, the Bloc Québécois will introduce a bill in this House to ban dishwasher detergents that contain phosphates. We hope that the government will pay attention this time and support the Bloc Québécois' bill, because this is a huge problem. Many other countries, such as Switzerland, have brought in regulations to address this issue.

We have to act now to protect our lakes and rivers. We also have to ensure that parliamentarians have a political arena in which they can introduce strict regulations to fight the degradation of our environment and our ecosystems.

In closing, I am pleased to support the member for Beaches—East York's Bill C-298. However, it is appalling that the government has waited more than three years to act on this issue even though it had access to all the studies at Environment Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-298, the perfluorooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act.

The bill seeks to add perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I am pleased to say that the government supports the bill as it has been amended.

Let me explain what the government is doing to protect Canadians and their environment from PFOS and related chemicals and why we are taking action. The departments of the environment and of health undertook an extensive environmental assessment of PFOS, its salts and its precursors, which concluded that PFOS is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic under CEPA, 1999.

PFOS has been detected in many wildlife species worldwide. Field evidence has identified high concentrations of PFOS accumulating in the liver and blood of fish-eating mammals and birds in the Canadian Arctic far from known sources or manufacturing facilities. PFOS concentrations in polar bears are higher than any other previously reported concentrations of other persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals. Current levels show that some wildlife organisms such as polar bears and some bird species could be near or at levels of effect and could be harmed by current exposures to PFOS

Since the government concluded its scientific risk assessment in the summer of 2006, the government has acted quickly and taken very strong action to prevent the risks from PFOS and its salts and certain other related compounds. These actions address a broad group of approximately 60 known substances in Canada and approximately 120 known substances internationally.

On December 16, 2006 the government published the proposed perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts and certain other compounds regulations. These regulations propose to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale and import of PFOS and related substances, as well as products and formulations containing these chemicals.

Temporary five year exemptions have been proposed to allow the use of firefighting foams and the sale, use and import of fume suppressants used in the metal plating sector. These actions will prohibit the vast majority of historic PFOS uses immediately and allow for the orderly transition to alternative products for critical applications.

In the case of firefighting foams, the five years will allow users to replace their PFOS containing products without compromising fire safety. For fume suppressants used in metal plating, the five years will allow for the development of alternative formulations. Alternatives to PFOS in this application currently do not exist and we want to provide a phase-out period so that emissions of other harmful substances are minimized.

In comparison with actions taken by other international jurisdictions, the Government of Canada's proposed regulatory approach represents the most comprehensive action to manage PFOS, its salts and other compounds.

We will also conduct environmental and human monitoring domestically to ensure that our objectives are met.

In addition to domestic regulations, the government will also work with international partners to manage the global concerns surrounding PFOS.

Canada is engaged in multinational efforts to address the risks posed by this substance. For example, Canada is actively leading in technical and policy discussions relating to the proposed regional and global restrictions on PFOS. Such restrictions would be taken as a result of 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.

Furthermore, Canada is actively engaged at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forums to share information and promote action on these chemicals. 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 terms of monitoring, the Department of Environment and the Department of Health are also committed to research and monitoring of PFOS and related chemicals. This research is to ensure that the actions being proposed are making a difference in the Canadian environment and among the Canadian people and to generate relevant information on current and emerging risks associated with these chemicals.

In December 2006 the government announced its chemicals management plan which included significant resources for research and monitoring. The plan, a comprehensive strategy to manage chemicals in Canada, includes a major investment in research and monitoring. The work under the chemicals management plan, which has already been started, will help inform the government and the public on the effectiveness of the PFOS regulations and help to ensure new and emerging risks are identified.

Allow me to read a section on PFOS under our chemical management plan:

The Government of Canada published a proposed order to add PFOS to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 on July 1, 2006. A proposed risk management strategy has also been published. This strategy outlines the Government of Canada's proposed actions to prevent the re-introduction of PFOS into the Canadian market and address the remaining uses in order to reduce or eliminate releases of PFOS into the environment.

At the same time, with the significant reduction in global PFOS production that began in 2000, exposure sources have been reduced and may eventually be eliminated. Since some PFOS production is known to still occur globally, the Government of Canada is continuing to work with other countries to encourage reduction and, eventually, elimination of PFOS manufacturing. Proposed regulations addressing PFOS are expected to be issued by the end of 2006.

The government has acted in developing actions on PFOS since the conclusions of the environmental assessment were finalized in July 2006.

Under the current regulatory process established by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, a proposed regulation or control instrument must be developed within 24 months of proposing a substance to be added to schedule 1. Once proposed, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have a further 18 months to finalize the regulation or instrument. Typically, this would result in a period of 42 months, or three and one-half years. The government is well on its way in accomplishing this for PFOS in under one and one-half years.

In conclusion, we are pleased that the environment committee was able to amend this bill to make it something that we can support.

We are committed to taking action against toxic substances. This is just further proof that this is indeed a government of action. We are cleaning up the environment for the sake of the health of our environment and for the health of all Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable in our population.

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

moved that Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to again debate this bill . I am very proud to be here. The bill represents an important step in protecting the health of Canadians and our environment. Bill C-298 seeks to eliminate from our environment a chemical that poses a threat to the health of Canadians.

With a few minor amendments in committee, the bill passed with unanimous support before prorogation. I look forward to its passage in the House of Commons with similar support this time around.

PFOS is one of a larger class of chemicals known as PFCs. The full name for this particular chemical, PFOS, is perfluorooctane sulfonate. As members can hear, it is a mouthful. These chemicals are mainly used in consumer products for their non-stick, stain repellent and water repellent properties. PFOS itself is used mostly as a stain repellent in various consumer products as well as in certain industrial applications.

This chemical is used in 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.

PFOS was in Scotchgard products made 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. That is interesting. It is very rare for an industry to actually stop using a product before it is banned by the government.

PFOS has been studied by many countries and international bodies that have concluded PFOS is a threat to human health and the environment. It is more persistent in the environment than both DDT and PCBs. All of the studies have shown this consistently.

It is also persistent in the human body. In fact, it takes at least eight years for it to work its way out of the human body. Even if we eliminated 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 system.

In April 2004, Environment Canada and Health Canada completed their own assessments of PFOS and 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 such that it should be regulated.

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

Unfortunately, PFOS meets all of these criteria.

Bill C-298 seeks the virtual elimination of PFOS from our environment. Virtual elimination has a specific meaning under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is laid out in section 65 of the act. 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.

Other countries have already taken action to protect their citizens and their environment from exposure to PFOS. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, 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.

PFOS belongs to this list of resistant 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. I hope that all parties and all members will support the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-298, under private members' business.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, be concurred in.

[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 concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would require the Minister of the Environment to add perfluorooctane sulfonate to the virtual elimination list compiled under subsection 65(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act within nine months of the bill becoming law.

The bill would also require the minister to make regulations prescribing the quantity or concentration of the 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)