Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2009

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We know those facts.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

The institute utilizes the funds to provide information on how to manage the risks associated with the production and handling of the fibres. Its information includes technical regulations, control measures, and best practices. That's the way in which to educate people on the controlled use of the fibres and--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Minister. I've actually read that same document, but what they are is a lobby group. Are there any other lobby groups that the Canadian government subsidizes so that they come and lobby the Government of Canada? The fact is they put on 160 trade junkets in 60 different countries, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, because they use our embassies and our foreign missions to flog this stuff.

The asbestos industry dines out on Canada's good name because they say that if a nice country like Canada says asbestos is okay, then it must be. Well, the whole world is united in their condemnation of asbestos, except for our country.

I used to work in the asbestos mines, believe me, and they closed due to normal market natural forces, because nobody would buy their junk any more. The only mines that are left in the country are in Quebec. Is that a coincidence, that you're supporting this industry because it's in the politically sensitive part of the country?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Martin, Canada's policies are based on internationally recognized, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and they reflect best practices.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Nonsense. David Bernstein is your only researcher.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Martin, please do not interrupt the minister. She only started her answer. If she were going on and on, that would be a different thing; you could politely interrupt. But please let the minister answer.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

The position is consistent with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, where countries agreed that chemicals should only be banned if the risks are unreasonable and otherwise unmanageable. The Government of Canada's approach to this is based on a life-cycle approach. It applies to all minerals and metals, and is consistent with our minerals and metals policy.

The purpose of the institute, Mr. Martin, isn't mandated as you state to create the.... The terminology used would be offensive to the people who actually work in the institute and do the work. But the key for us with respect to the Chrysotile Institute is what I said in the last part of my remarks: the funds are used to provide information on how to manage the risks associated with the production and handling of the fibres. Those are important matters to make sure people have the information.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

With all due respect, I know you're a relatively new minister, but I think you should follow up on what they're really doing with that money. I run into them all over the world when they're promoting and pushing asbestos, and undermining things like the Rotterdam convention. They showed up to undermine and sabotage the Rotterdam convention on the list of hazardous materials under the United Nations.

Asbestos is not on that list because Canada twists arms to make sure it's not. It's an embarrassment. It's a disgrace.

Unfortunately, my time is up. I would like to share what time I have left with my--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up, Mr. Martin.

Madam Minister, do you want to respond?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

The Government of Canada, in partnership with the Government of Quebec and industry, mandated the institute to promote the controlled use of chrysotile. That is the job, and the funding is applied to that mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Now we'll go to Mr. Anderson for up to seven minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Shory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You may do that if there is time left.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

There will be.

I want to make a quick observation. I'm disappointed that Mr. Martin has showed up here with his torqued-up rhetoric on his special subject. It seemed to me that Mr. Cullen wanted to make Chalk River an important part of our discussions, and we included it in the orders of the day as something we would be talking about here today. But when it was his turn to have his intervention there was not one word about Chalk River during the seven minutes of question time. So I'm not sure what they wanted to do with that.

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

Point of order, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Mr. Anderson knows full well that in our discussions this morning I clearly made a distinction between talking about the estimates here today and my motion specifically on the effects of Chalk River. We've already gone through this conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, we have, and this is debate. So we will get back to Mr. Anderson.

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

I'm not sure why Mr. Anderson is bringing it back up. We went through this conversation in all good faith this very day. I'm not sure how it improves the decorum under your committee chairmanship to raise something that Mr. Anderson knows--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is debate, Mr. Cullen. We can have that debate again another time, if you like.

We have the minister here today. Let's get to the questions.

Mr. Anderson--and the clock was stopped--go ahead, please.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

What we went through was Mr. Cullen's opinion on what we should do with this meeting. But the fact remains that the orders of the day include discussing the Chalk River nuclear facility and the estimates.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Shory for his questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Shory, you have about six minutes left.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming out this afternoon.

We'll be studying Bill S-3 next week. I understand that the bill is to amend the current Energy Efficiency Act. For my benefit and the benefit of my friends on the opposite side, what exactly is the Energy Efficiency Act, and why do we need to change it?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much for your question.

The amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act are there to help Canadians save more money by reducing household energy use and in turn lowering home energy bills. The amendments modernize the act by increasing its scope and effectiveness. They pave the way for subsequent new energy efficiency regulations that will cover more products and cover them more effectively. The proposed amendments build on the Government of Canada's “Turning the Corner” plan to fight climate change, which of course sets an absolute reduction of 20% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Specifically, the amendments have to do with amending the scope of the act, allowing authority to prescribe labels of what information should be provided to the consumer when purchasing products, and clarification on authority to regulate the classes or categories of the products. It's those kinds of amendments that will help us toward the goal of the act to eliminate the least energy-efficient products from the Canadian marketplace. So when the Canadian consumer makes a choice for energy efficiency, they have the information to do so. Not only that, but we are eliminating from the marketplace those products that are not energy efficient.

Thank you very much for your question.

I look forward to hearing the committee's deliberations.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Minister, many of my constituents tell me how much they appreciate our government's ecoENERGY retrofit home program. I understand that changes were recently made to this program. Can you please tell this committee how these changes will help consumers?