Environment Committee on March 20th, 2007

[Dr. Mindy Goldman]

Those studies were done in the eighties, when there first was concern over the health effects of DEHP and people started thinking they could maybe remove them from the plastic and use other plasticizers.

There were some very elegant studies done. They put the blood in glass bottles instead of bags, and they didn't have DEHP. They found the cells didn't last very well and that if they added DEHP they did last. The summary of those studies was that before we consider removing this from the bags we'd better have an alternative that will preserve the red cells.

That being said, it's not that well understood as to why that's the case.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate that...so science is very important.

Canada has a population of approximately 32 million. Medical devices are used worldwide. If Canada were to restrict the use of DEHP in medical devices like catheters, intravenous tubing, medical gloves and these supplies, are we going to put the health of Canadians at risk if we do not have a reasonable amount of time for manufacturers to be able to do the research necessary to provide alternatives? What are the pros and cons?

Everything has a risk, so what kind of time would we need realistically? Considering that Canada is a relatively small consumer in the global sense, is there a possibility of putting Canadians at risk if we do not allow enough time...?

Maybe you could comment on that, Mr. Lucas.

[Stephen Lucas]

Thank you. I'd like to respond to this question.

As the honourable member indicated, Canada is a relatively small consumer in the global market. Approximately 10% of medical devices used in Canada are from Canadian manufacturers; the other 90% are imported to Canada, primarily from the United States and Europe.

As we've noted, we are committed to an approach that is consistent with our draft policy and works to phase out the use of phthalates, starting with high-risk populations, where alternatives or substitutes can be found and implemented.

Our concern is that if we move too quickly to a prohibition, given that the bulk of the manufacturers are outside of the country--as I noted, 90%--Canadians could be deprived. And some of the implications could be use of devices that aren't proven effective and could kink. That's one of the potential consequences of not proving the long-term safety and effectiveness of an alternative device.

We've also noted the costs and that there will be an adjustment period for the hospitals to purchase and implement the substitutes. Right now we're looking at about ten times the cost of the current DEHP-containing ones.

With these considerations in mind, we want an approach that moves our policy and implementation of its recommendations ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. Brody, you have about 15 seconds.

[Charlotte Brody]

I just want to ask where the figure of ten times the cost came from, because I know hospitals in the United States are moving to PVC-free units that are the same cost as current devices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lucas, can you give a five-second answer?

[Stephen Lucas]

We can validate that--

[Charlotte Brody]

I'd like to see the data.

[Stephen Lucas]

--and report back to the committee.

We do recognize that when the market does move, it will drive the cost down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If you could get that back to the committee, we could certainly provide Ms. Brody with it. Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing.

Mr. McGuinty does want our motion dealt with, so we'll move on to that after we grab some lunch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Members, we'll begin again.

I should have mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that the minister will be here for two hours on Thursday. He has basically said that we can ask him any questions we want. He's open to that, and that's been communicated to us.

The motion that I'm going to ask Mr. McGuinty to speak to is basically more of an information.... The supplemental estimates have been reported back, but of course we can carry on a study of whatever we want in committee.

At this point, I'd ask Mr. McGuinty to put his motion. Then we'll open it for debate.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I guess the best way to start is to just read the motion, as follows:

That, in light of the very short timelines available to committees to study the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2006-2007, the Minister of the Environment be invited to appear on Thursday, March 22, 2007, with regard to a review under section 108(2) of the Standing Orders of the expenditure plans of the department for the fiscal year 2006-2007, and the effectiveness of their implementation.

I move the motion as so put, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to speak to it, if I may, for just a few minutes.

I'm glad to hear that the minister is available on Thursday for several hours. I'm pleased to see that his attending won't be a problem. But the motion I put here is a specific one, and I think it goes to the heart of accountability.

We decided at the last meeting, Mr. Chair, to invite the minister. At that time, our committee decided to study the supplementaries for 2006-07, the end of last year's fiscal cycle. Unfortunately, due to scheduling issues and the standing orders, the minister was not able to appear before the supplementaries were deemed reported back to the House--yesterday.

I understand that the minister, as you've just said, has graciously agreed to appear anyway so that the committee might exercise some accountability--looking retrospectively, looking back--and review environmental spending and value for money propositions for 2006-07. I was a bit surprised to see, then, based on our last discussion, that the official notice for Thursday's meeting lists the order of the day to be the main estimates for this coming year--that is, 2007-08.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

But just to clarify, he has agreed to talk about anything that any member wants to talk about. So it's open to whatever.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I think we're going to have plenty of time--until May--to do a proper review of this year's main estimates, and the committee will want to follow through with a separate study when the time comes. But what we need and what the committee has asked for is a timely review of last year's performance by the government. It's a reasonable request.

I know that the Auditor General, in repeated reports, has regularly suggested that all standing committees make this a top priority. So the invitation described in my motion would allow us to take this up in full on Thursday and clear up the confusion. That's the essence of what I'm proposing for Thursday with the minister. I'm sure he would be pleased to attend and discuss that.

I think it's important to circumscribe the area we're examining, given that covering everything at once makes it a bit more difficult for us to be better prepared. It will allow the minister much more latitude in explaining to Canadians how and why decisions were made, and the effectiveness of spending patterns and new programs launched in budget 2006, for example, to get a better sense of how they have worked out.

I've always believed that the estimates process is the heart of the democratic process, and sometimes as parliamentarians we lose sight of that. But it will be a wonderful opportunity on Thursday to look back at 2006-07, and I recommend we look forward to another meeting on the main estimates, as presented some four weeks ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just to be clear, the minister has indicated he'll talk about whatever we want. Obviously that notice came out from our office, from the clerk, and it said main estimates because that is where we are. But I see no reason why we can't discuss those areas and invite the minister back at another occasion to discuss whatever we want.

Mr. Warawa.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary's argument is weak, in my opinion. We've had time to examine the two bills and in my opinion, we've followed proper procedure. We've heard testimony from witnesses.

When a witness testifies -- and this has always been the rule -- it's important to have a purpose in mind. The government is proposing that we invite a minister here, without giving us a specific agenda. In my view, we run the risk of straying from the subject at hand. It's important, for government and opposition members alike, to be well prepared.

For now, the only motion on the table calls for us to hear from the Minister on Thursday. If the government has something better to suggest, then it should move a motion. At the very least, we need an agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In the past, the committee's attention to the estimates has been insufficient in looking over what the government has actually spent. I think it's poignant.

If you need to change the motion to declare that, so that the minister is not able to hide behind this particular motion, which looks forward in spending, then we can make whatever change is necessary. But having the minister here, having him accountable for what moneys were and weren't spent in the last fiscal year I think is important, particularly in conjunction with efficacy around climate change, in particular.

I don't think there's a need for a long debate about this. I think we can move to a vote and have it decided.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have one more comment on this to respond.

The minister has indicated he's coming to speak on spending, on the main estimates. Mr. Bigras made a comment that we need to have an agenda. We do have an agenda. The minister is willing to talk about anything, but is here primarily to speak about spending, the main estimates. If there are other questions the committee would like to have addressed, he would be happy to address them.

It's interesting that when the previous minister was here she was criticized for having a narrow field by some members of this committee. The new minister has said he's open to discuss anything. No matter what the availability of the minister, there seems to be criticism.

I think we need to be willing to work with this minister; he's willing to work with the committee. He'll be available to answer any question, but he's primarilry here for, and the agenda Mr. Bigras spoke of is primarily about, the main estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, if possible let's have our last or closing comment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think our parliamentary secretary, Mr. Warawa, is confused. He says it's not confusing, but he confuses that matter.

This is a very specific motion that is seeking to ascertain the will of this committee to have the Minister of the Environment come to present and be prepared to explain the conduct of the government over the past 12 months of the fiscal year ended on March 31, 2007.

This is not a motion that is calling on the minister to arrive and discuss the main estimates as presented four weeks ago. I put that in black and white in my opening statement. This is about circumscribing, as Mr. Bigras said clearly, the minister and our agenda for Thursday, so that we can more fully focus.

If we're on a high seas fishing expedition and the minister wants to speak about everything, including what his favourite cookie recipe is, I'm not interested. We're talking about the year-end, March 31, 2007.

I'd like to be positive about this and I'd like to call for the vote now, Mr. Chair, because I think the motion is very clear, and I'd like it to be the expression of the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'll just let Mr. Harvey speak very briefly.