Environment Committee on May 10th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Order.

I have something to explain to members. I guess something was passed yesterday in the House procedurally that when the bells start ringing the committees must suspend. I imagine the reason for that was because most of us would go that extra ten minutes while the bells were ringing. I suppose some people had difficulty getting back to the House. Anyway, we're observing the rules exactly here.

Mr. McGuinty.

[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.

[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]

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, we have an agenda. We have the witnesses here and Maria Minna is here. Is it a debatable motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It has to be put immediately, Mark, I'm sorry.

The members have heard the motion that we reverse the order. Then, of course, we would have to clear the room and so on to go in camera.

Those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I guess we're reversing the order. I would ask that we suspend for a moment while we clear the room.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[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.

[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]

Are members in favour of going to clause 3 and then back to clause 2?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

Ms. Minna, welcome to our committee.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If you'd like to make a comment, certainly members would appreciate hearing that.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for taking the time to go over this with me, as has Mr. Khatter, who has been very helpful in the work I've done.

This bill was introduced, as the committee knows, prior to the government's introduction of the prohibition, but nonetheless it was welcomed. We have had some meetings with a government representative with respect to the kinds of amendments that would be acceptable, while at the same time having the bill go through.

One of the things that motivated me for putting this forward, Mr. Chair, is the persistence of this particular toxin in the food chain and in the environment, in bodies. In some recent studies that were done, actually very recently, I think it was 2006--and I believe the Department of National Defence was one of them; they were testing other toxins. They did find, in fact, PFOS in the bodies of Canadians, and in particularly higher levels in those of children, which of course is expected, given that children are growing fast and that their cells are also duplicating much faster than those of us who are going in the other direction these days.

Nonetheless, I felt it was extremely important to make sure that this kind of persistent organic pollutant, or this persistent toxin, be removed from our environment. As you know, 3M has stopped producing products with it, voluntarily, because it recognized that it was such a potent toxin that it wasn't going to argue and try to delay its own actions. And that's rare for the private sector, as we all know, to actually act on something as quickly as it did in this case. It has been banned in most other countries in the world, except for some very rare exceptions with respect to some equipment, but apart from that it has.

Now, what I would hope this committee would also address, in addition to supporting the bill today, would be to recommend that the bill to be referenced from this committee to the Stockholm Convention on POPs, to have it listed on the Stockholm Convention as well, as one of the persistent organic pollutants, and also to amend the shortfalls within CEPA with respect to this area.

I want to finish by saying that the kinds of cancers that are caused by this toxin, I don't even want to list to you--but things like the pancreas...and all kinds of other problems. It is quite cumulative; it is one of the worst toxins. There are many others, and hopefully we'll work our way through getting rid of all of them, but I thought I would deal with this one.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for your patience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Ms. Minna.

(On clause 3--Addition of perfluorooctane sulfonate)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have a government amendment on page 4.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Clause 3 of this bill has a problem. It would require the government to take unnecessary and ineffective regulatory action when effective regulatory action has already been taken. I pointed that out in my opening.

Our proposed amendment would ensure that PFOS can be added to the VE list without creating any obligation for additional release regulations. We agree that adding PFOS to the VE list would have important symbolic value, especially as the world considers what to do with the substance throughout the international process.

Our proposed changes would not, however, result in the government being committed to developing an ineffective regulation.

A level of quantification is the lowest level a substance can be measured. As it stands, the LOQs are developed for emissions and are intended to be the ultimate release limits in release-limit regulations.

So we believe our amendment deals with this, and again, I thank Ms. Minna for her work.

We have our motion. I don't think it's necessary for me to read it out, but I believe it will deal clearly with PFOS in an appropriate manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Other members' comments, questions?

Mr. Bigras.

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

I have a question. If I understand correctly, a notice was already published in the Canada Gazette on October 2, 2004. Therefore, a process was already under way. However, a considerable amount of time elapsed between the publication of the notice and the actual consultation process.

Why did so much time elapse between the actual publication of the notice and the decision-making process and why has perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, not been added to the list of substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Why the delay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Van Loon, do you have a comment, as one of our experts?

[James Van Loon, Manager, Policy and Planning, Regulatory Innovation and Management Systems, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

I'm not one of the risk assessors. However, Robert Chénier, who was a witness here a couple of weeks ago, is. I think he's answered this question in saying that there's a lot of developing science. Ms. Minna was just talking about some that was done last year, and we've been an active part of that science. It's the ongoing research that has led to some time being taken to make this decision.

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

Why did two or three years elapse before the government came up with a proposal? I believe the parliamentary secretary wants to suggest that we act more quickly. Is the lack of resources the reason for this delay?

There are a number of scientific considerations, but are resource issues the reason why PFOS was not added to the substance list in Schedule 1?

[James Van Loon]

I don't think it was a question of resources. I think it was simply a question of wanting to make the right decision as the science evolved.