Debates of Dec. 4th, 1998

Railway Safety Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, December 7, 1998, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, the division will take place on Monday at 6.30 p.m. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this division held at the same time as the other votes, at 5 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to have this division held at 5 p.m. instead of 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Points Of Order

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention something that could be considered a serious breach of the integrity of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Madam Speaker, as you know the finance committee report was due to be released at 1.30 p.m. today in the public environment. Yet, not more than 15 minutes ago the chairman of the finance committee was in the public environment outside the House with a copy of the finance committee report in his hands in the presence of media.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that he was the only person of the Standing Committee on Finance who had a copy of that report. I therefore question the independence of the report in view of that fact. I would ask that the Chair recognize this.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this is the first I have heard about this. I will endeavour to verify these facts immediately. If I have enough information before we adjourn this afternoon, I will gladly report to the House.

It is a breach of our standing orders for anyone to release a report publicly before it is tabled in the House. All members know these rules. However, I will verify that and report to the extent possible before we adjourn today as to our findings.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify for the government House leader that the report was not circulated. However, it was in the public venue outside this House and outside the confidentiality that was required before the public release of the report.

We, as committee members, are given to understand that we are considered equals when it comes to dealing with the confidentiality of reports. Confidentiality applies to all of us. I have some grave concerns in light of the concerns that were expressed in this House in this past week regarding the leaking of reports.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will wait for the government House leader to come back with his comments.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should act decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.

Madam Speaker, members may ask why we are debating this motion. The brief answer is that certain harmful polluting substances, which travel long distances, are landing in the Arctic. The Government of Canada is constructively working with other governments in arriving at agreements to reduce these polluting substances, to protect human health, the environment, wildlife and people living in the Arctic.

The name of these polluting substances is POPs. They are pesticides used in agriculture, chemicals such as PCBs, products such as chlorinated dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons otherwise known as PAHs, resulting from fossil fuel combustion, the burning and processing of wood and other materials.

One might ask why the signature on the protocol of persistent organic pollutants or POPs is important and urgent. Because 16 nations are required to ratify the protocol so that the agreement to reduce organic pollutants goes into effect. I am told it will be open for signature by interested nations after December 21, 1998.

The situation in the Arctic is described in the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report which was produced last year.

The report states that persistent organic pollutants from sources outside Canada and outside the Arctic have been transported to the Arctic by air. These pollutants find their way into the Arctic food chain and accumulate in traditional aboriginal foods. As a result, high levels of the pesticides toxaphene and chlordane have been found in beluga muktoq and seal meat. In many cases, our Inuit people who eat even a very small quantity of traditional sources of meat may ingest more than what Health Canada considers tolerable.

It is important to note that neither toxaphene nor chlordane is used in Canada.

In that report we find also that there are disturbing measurements of PCBs in the breast milk of Inuit women which are now among the highest levels in the world. In the cases of 40% and over of Inuit women, the PCB in their blood is up to five times the level of concern prescribed by the Department of Health.

Clearly, human health depends on what we do about pollutants and in the case of the Arctic, about these POPs. In southern Canada, Professor Jules Blais of the University of Ottawa whose research appeared in the journal Nature in October 1998 reports disturbing quantities of pesticides transported by air to the Rocky Mountains. In the Columbia ice fields and at Lake Louise, Professor Blais found traces of the prairie crop insecticide, lindane; endosulphan, a popular insect killer used in eastern Canada; chlordane, a banned termite terminator; and even DDT, a pesticide banned in Canada but still in use in China, in Mexico and in other countries.

There are also reports related to Denver and Mexico City. People may face a problem with respect to their drinking water from snow melts on mountains more than 3,000 metres high where there may be even greater accumulation of pollutants than found in our Rockies. Scientists in Switzerland have also expressed alarm because a number of Swiss towns also take their water from lakes high in the mountains.

All this points to the problems posed by these POPs as faced by people and governments in different continents.

For the Government of Canada, it therefore becomes necessary to control the release of these POPs that we still produce at home, such as dioxins and furans. As long as we continue to produce them, POPs will enter the ecosystem and the food chain.

The more we pollute, the higher price we pay in terms of health care costs. Many POPs we are told cause endocrine system defects, immune system dysfunction, reproductive abnormalities and developmental problems in humans. Some POPs can induce or promote cancers. Here at home once we clean our own backyard, then of course we can urge our neighbours to clean up theirs.

Ratifying the POPs protocol becomes desirable so that other countries know we are serious about the reduction of these organic pollutants.

We need to take a lead role in the implementation of the new global agreement. A meeting of international experts on organic pollutants held in Vancouver in 1995 produced recommendations. The agreement I am referring to is the one that UNEP, the United Nations environment program, produced to ensure that firm targets and timetables are set for the elimination of these POPs around the globe.

It will take a great deal of political will to convince developing countries of the long term human health benefits of eliminating POPs. It will also require significant financial resources to help those countries to change their processes and practices in agriculture and pest management.

Apparently the World Bank and other international lenders, as a condition for giving financial aid, often force farmers in developing countries to use pesticides containing POPs. This policy led to a meeting in Vancouver three years ago when international experts got together and came up with the following recommendations.

One, that international and national banking practices should promote safe alternatives to and the reduction and elimination of POPs.

Two, that incentives for the use of safer pesticides and chemicals be offered to communities in developing nations in order to reduce and eliminate POPs.

Three, that there be an enforcement of stricter limits on pesticide residue on food and that countries be discouraged from using POPs in agriculture.

Four, that human and ecological health be taken into account when making decisions related to trade and investment.

The importance of addressing the human health implications in the Arctic resulting from the long range transport of organic pollutants is proven by the northern contaminants program. This will be funded in Canada for a further five years by the Government of Canada, in the amount of $6 million each year, for a total of $30 million.

The elimination of these organic pollutants also points to the need to take action in Canada on several fronts.

First, we must continue to do research on the effects of POPs. Second, we must enact strong legislation to eliminate and prevent POPs and enforce it. Third, we must regulate industry efficiently and prevent damage to human health. Fourth, we must ban substances that are dangerous to human health and, where certain substances cannot be banned, use pollution prevention policies.

We are mindful of the fact that there are over 23,000 substances registered for use in Canada. So far only a handful have been banned. Thousands of others still need to be reviewed to determine if they are toxic and plans for their management, control and elimination still are to be developed.

There is a need to implement a policy whereby health is given priority over the economy because, as we are discovering, over the long term a healthy society and a healthy environment ensure the foundation for a healthy economy. This is the reason we as parliamentarians are interested in promoting and accelerating treaties which reduce international pollution.

International organic pollutants, POPs, must be seen as a threat to health and the economy. Pollutants from faraway places can and do harm us. Hence, there is a necessity for agreements between governments so as to ensure good economic and environmental behaviour among nations.

For parliamentarians there is a role to play through the Arctic Council. There are parliamentary colleagues in Scandinavia, the U.S.A. and Russia interested in preventing pollution. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I discovered this fact several years ago and have at every opportunity advanced the cause of pollution prevention and reduction through the signature of protocols. In the case of organic pollutants, we have done so in Iqaluit, in Salekhard, Russia and at the Council of Europe.

Next year we intend to intensify our efforts in Brussels on the occasion of a meeting of the Arctic Council and again in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe.

I conclude in urging colleagues in this House to speak forcefully in favour of pollution reduction and prevention and any initiative that can take us toward the reduction and virtual elimination of pollutants which are so damaging to human health, the economy and the environment.

As the population on this globe grows and human activities intensify, it is becoming evident that we have to accelerate the process of pollution reduction and, where possible, pollution prevention through changes in industrial processes and practices if we are to make life on this planet possible in the long run.

The issue of POPs is a classic example of international interdependence. The pollutants we let into the atmosphere can harm people in distant places and the pollutants emitted in distant places harm us. We have to renew the strong will which guided us in the seventies and the eighties and make a concerted new effort toward the goal of a pollution free society. Today that is what this debate on POPs is all about.

Points Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to inquire into the matter raised previously on a point of privilege by another member of the House in the matter of the tabling of a report by the chair of the finance committee.

I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding, I am sure inadvertently, in the beginning. I had concluded from the comments of some hon. members that there was an allegation that in fact the report had been circulated and made available to the media and possibly commented on by the chair of the committee prior to it being tabled in the House.

I am satisfied that was not the case. In fact the document was tabled in the House and then the chair left and commented on this report.

I was also led to believe, and perhaps this is my mistake, that copies were made available to the media prior to being made available to members. That was not accurate either.

I have made inquiries to the officials of the House of Commons and they inform me that they are doing their best to have copies available as quickly as they can. Obviously, committee members had their own working copies when they were in committee. Apparently two or three copies are being sent to the opposition lobbies now, with the good graces of our clerk's office, and I have obtained two copies myself which I am certainly willing to share with any hon. member who wants one.

I am told that the matter is a matter of printing with the House of Commons and has nothing to do at all with anything that the chair either has done by way of commission or omission.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

The Environment

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today to speak to Motion M-37, moved by my hon. colleague from Davenport.

The member for Davenport has been chairing the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as we go through CEPA, a bill which has some 380 clauses and some 480 amendments. So his task in the last few weeks has been rather daunting. It is encouraging to see that he still has the strength to be up on Friday speaking to his private member's motion.

We do not agree on how to get to a clean environment, in most respects, but we do agree that a clean environment is important.

The motion reads:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should act decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.

I think it is important in order to fully understand this motion to explain the origin of the POPs protocol. The roots of this protocol can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, a forum at which the countries of North America, western, central and eastern Europe and central Asia came together to forge the tools of economic co-operation.

This large group of countries, with close historical ties, accounts for 64% of world production, but it also is responsible for 60% of the world's CO2 emissions. These facts illustrate the region's responsibilities toward its own people as well as toward those of the other regions of the world. They are the backdrop against which UN/ECE's activities are carried out. The ECE is intended to be a forum for dialogue aimed at bringing about better understanding and agreement on common guidelines and policies. Where agreements are negotiated and assistance activities prepared, its main purpose is to harmonize the policies and practices of its member countries.

The ECE has many different divisions, one of which deals with environment and human settlements. One of the many bodies of this division is the executive body for the convention on long range transboundary air pollution. This was drafted after scientists investigated the link between sulphur emissions in continental Europe and the acidification of Scandinavian lakes and later studied the possibility that air pollutants could travel several thousand kilometres before deposition and damage occurred. This implied that co-operation at the international level was necessary to solve problems such as acidification.

The convention was the first international legally binding instrument to deal with problems of air pollution on a broad regional basis. It was signed in 1979 and entered into force in 1983. Since its entry into force the convention has been extended by seven protocols, one of which is a protocol on persistent organic pollutants. The executive body adopted the protocol on persistent organic pollutants on June 24, 1998 in Denmark. It focuses on a list of 16 substances that have been singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The list contains eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three byproduct contaminants. The ultimate objective is to eliminate any discharges, emissions and POPs.

The protocol bans the production and use of some products. Others are scheduled for elimination at a later stage. The protocol severely restricts the use of DDT, HCH and PCBs. The protocol includes provisions for dealing with the wastes of products that will be banned. It also obliges parties to reduce the emissions of dioxins, furans, PAHs and HCBs below their 1990 levels. It lays down specific limit values for the incineration of municipal hazardous and medical waste.

Canada has been host to the first of five negotiating sessions to be held over the next two years that will eventually see a legally binding treaty by 2000. What does this mean to Canada? The Canadian Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness and sparse population. However, over the past 50 years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources such as heavy industry and from distant regions of the world through air and sea currents.

Since this is the case we are faced with quite a dilemma. Many of the contaminants of concern in the Arctic are pesticides and industrial chemicals that are no longer used in Canada and that in many cases have been banned or restricted for use in most of the developed world. However, they continue to be used by developing countries and can be found in Canadian lakes, rivers and snow. It is important for developing countries to be part of any protocol to reduce pollution in the world. Canada has been a world leader in assessing the problem of long range airborne pollutants but it will require co-operation on a global scale before the pollution problem is properly assessed.

Arctic ecosystems are very fragile. The nature of these chemicals is such that they tend to accumulate in the tissues of living things. Animals at the top of the food chain have been found with unexpectedly high levels of these contaminants which is cause for some concern for Inuit people. The Inuit people rely heavily on naturally harvested foods such as fish, seals, caribou not only for their diet but also to maintain their culture.

If this were to be taken away the socioeconomic impact alone could be vast. Because of this heavy reliance on traditionally harvested foods northern aboriginal people are susceptible to exposure to the potential adverse effects of these contaminants. Although the Canadian arctic contaminants assessment report concludes there is not an immediate threat to the health of adults, there are concerns over possible health effects on unborn children and infants.

This motion is not the right way to fix the problem. The environmental damage to Canada's north is from more than just POPs. The motion is only a piecemeal solution to a much bigger problem. The government has not yet told Canadians how it is planning to deal with contaminated sites on federal lands.

Last week the auditor general recognized that the government has no idea how to deal with the estimated 5,000 contaminated sites located on crown land in Canada. It has no comprehensive view of the potential risk to health, safety and the environment associated with these sites. It does not yet have a complete and accurate view of the related contingent or actual liabilities.

The government has not developed and implemented a central timetable and has not finalized and implemented a high level environmental policy for common standards for due diligence in a consistent manner. There is still confusion over who would take a leadership role with respect to this mess, so as a result there is no leadership.

The Reform Party recognizes the right of all Canadians to dwell in a clean and healthy environment. It has been our policy from the beginning to support immediate long term restoration programs for areas of the environment damaged due to inadequate or improperly enforced regulations.

But this motion is not a long term restoration program for an area of the environment that has been damaged due to inadequate or improperly enforced regulations. It is a solution to only a small part of a greater problem.

The motion lets the government off too easy. When will we see a motion that would commit the government to a clear plan of action, a plan where it will take responsibility and show some leadership? It would be seriously remiss for this House to approve this motion, although I know it is not votable, while ignoring the bigger problems Canada's northern people face.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley did not accuse the chairman of the finance committee of leaking the report but accused the chair of compromising his position to take advantage for himself while the other members of the committee were disadvantaged because the report was not available to them.

I want to make it clear that since the report was not printed the other members were disadvantaged. Ethically it was not appropriate to use his position in this way.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I rise to support this motion.

In June 1997 the Arctic environmental strategy, northern contaminants program issued the Canadian Arctic contaminants report. This report was the result of 6 years of scientific research and more than 100 studies. The results confirmed what northerners had been saying for years, that the environment is changing, people are becoming sick by compromised immune systems, thyroid malfunction, tumours and cancer. These are unheard of through thousands of years of northern people's histories. The fish, the caribou, the birds, they too are sick, the very food and sustenance of the north.

The science identified a complete contamination of the northern ecosystem. Persistent contaminants could be found throughout the Arctic ecosystem: air, surface, sea water, suspended sediments, show, fish, marine mammals, seabirds and terrestrial plants and animals.

The most frightening and shocking findings were that contaminants in northern people are in mothers' breast milk. PCBs and other chemicals are there. There are very high levels of thyroid malfunction in the north as well. The science calls it POPs, persistent organic pollutants. They persist and they are unmanageable.

The New Democratic Party recognizes these POPs are an international concern, an issue that threatens ecosystems around the globe, a danger that is all too real for aboriginal peoples through the north as well as anyone else who lives in the north.

We support this motion that calls for strong action on POPs and we commend the hon. member for Davenport for raising this issue, for his persistence and his dedication in doing so. We are truly fortunate to have such a member of parliament among us.

Canada's Arctic is one of the most susceptible and proven dumping grounds on earth for these insidious poisons. The cold climate acts as a sink. These pollutants do not evaporate to be carried elsewhere. They persist and they remain in the north. They are known as the dirty dozen. They are acknowledged deadlies and there are thousands more as yet undefined and unidentified.

The United Nations meeting in Montreal for the elimination of POPs, held this June, is a significant step toward reaching a global treaty by 2000. Canada's environment minister called for the elimination of POPs which do include PCBs.

Yet she refuses to clean up the PCB laden Marwell tar pit in Whitehorse, Yukon. This government owned the land, allowed it to be polluted then transferred it to the Yukon tar pit, PCBs and all. Yet this government refuses any responsibility for these deadly pollutants in the middle of a major city in the north.

I worry that this government has little regard for transboundary contaminants in the north. An excellent example of the obvious indifference demonstrated by this government to the environmental degradation in Yukon and the north is not limited to the mass deforestation encouraged by this government.

I call to the attention of the House a request for information on possible transboundary contaminants related to four decades of the United States military operations in Alaska. POPs and environmental contaminants are known to be carried by the wind and water. These operations were conducted within 200 kilometres of Canada's borders, perhaps carried across our borders.

On September 29, 1998, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to determine if possible cross-border environmental contamination of Canadian territory, Yukon, had occurred. This request was related to the following five points: chemical and biological weapons testing at the Gerstle River site of Alaska; transportation of replacement nuclear reactor cores to Fort Greely in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1970; the March 1998 bunker bomb testing using depleted uranium bomb cases just across the border from Yukon; chemical weapons testing at Fort Wainright in the early 1990s; unexploded ordinance, nuclear waste storage, landfills and disposal sites at various points in Alaska.

We have not received a response to date, this after the November 30 meeting in Washington D.C. with the minister's counterpart Madeline Albreight. If northerners cannot receive a basic response from this government to concerns related to environmental contaminants such as chemical and biological weapons testing adjacent to the Yukon Territory, how can we expect any leadership related to international efforts related to persistent organic pollutants?

I hope we as a nation can acknowledge the terrible price the north is expected to pay for inaction. Action is needed.

I quote Craig Boljkovak, part of the U.N. treaty on persistent organic pollutants. Canada's moral authority is in peril:

At present Canada is headed down a road where its hard fought gains in the form of a POPs treaty are being seriously undermined by its weak domestic record. Political intervention is necessary at the highest level to put the government back on track. The environment and its human inhabitants deserve no less.

Canada's international reputation belies its lack of domestic action on POPs and other toxics.

The government has done a laudable job of publicizing the plight of the Arctic and the Great Lakes among countries considering action on POPs and Canada can be considered a driving force for a treaty. This high level of international activity unfortunately is not matched by domestic action on POPs.

These are the very citizens in the north who depend on our government to protect them and to protect the environment and food source in the north.

Action is needed. Leadership is needed. Political will is needed to reduce the pollutants, prevent their creation and to clean up old messes.

Yukon has over 200 abandoned military sites that need to be cleaned up and again this government cut funding to the Arctic environment strategy which identified these contaminated sites for clean-up.

The United States has a serious involvement. It has abandoned distant early warning sites, old military sites and airfield sites. The list goes on and on. Much of this was done during the second world war but that does not mean it should not be cleaned up.

I conclude with the words of Norma Kassi, a woman who represented the flatlands of Old Crow for many years. She is a Gwitchin woman:

I was raised on Old Crow Flats in northern Yukon. Old Crow Flats is one of the world's great wetlands, having more than 2000 lakes throughout 600,000 hectares just above the Arctic circle.

The name of my people, Vuntut Gwitchin, means the caribou people of the lakes. We've lived here for thousands and thousands of years.

For a long time I've watched the birds come back to Old Crow Flats every spring.

I remember when I was about ten years old, sitting with my grandfather at the lake where a lot of birds used to come. They would land and play and meet one another after their long trip. They made a lot of noise. They were singing. They were happy. They were telling stories. These birds I only knew in my own language.

My grandfather said to me “You know, someday when you are a woman you are going to see a lot of changes. When there are only loons out there you are going to know that something is wrong with the land and the weather”.

That was 30 years ago. Now I go back to Old Crow Flats every three or four years and I see the changes. I sit at the same spot and I remember my grandfather's words.

Every time I return I see fewer animals, fewer fish, fewer birds. The water is silent and so crystal clear I can see to the bottom. There used to be so much activity, so much aquatic life, insects and little bugs. But now I can't. And now I see a pair of loons only out there and that is about it.

These are Norma's words and I think we should take them as a warning and act before it is too late.

Again I would really like to stress that often the north is overlooked. It is not a large population but people are getting sick. People of Old Crow have suffered an incredible amount of loss through cancer, yet their elders have remained strong, those who lived off the land. The younger generation is suffering. I do not think as a country we should be allowing that to go on.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to Motion No. 37 as presented by the hon. member for Davenport that in the opinion of the House, the government should act decisively in response to the evidence in the Canada Arctic contaminants assessment report to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.

The member for Yukon had the opportunity to speak to this motion. She represents a riding obviously of a northern nature that is more susceptible to the effects of persistent organic pollutants than any other region of our country.

I also want to point out that pollutants that are created from afar affect us no matter where we reside in this country. Also, pollutants with respect to POPs produced where we live actually have an effect on individuals who live very far from us.

The motion refers to the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report. I would like to read a few words of that report:

The Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness and sparse population. However, over the last 50 years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources such as mining and from distant industrial and agricultural regions of the world. These persistent contaminants have been detected throughout Arctic ecosystems including air, surface seawater, suspended sediments and snow.

I would also like to highlight another comment with respect to POPs:

Contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants, known as POPs, heavy metals and radionuclides enter the Arctic through long range transport on air and water currents, with the atmosphere being the primary pathway.

The point is individuals who may not be responsible for manufacturing or creating these pollutants are actually victims of these pollutants.

The report goes on to say that from 1985 to 87 PCBs were measured in the blood of Inuit in the community of Broughton Island, NWT, known to have a relatively high per capita intake of traditionally harvested foods. Results showed that blood PCBs exceeded tolerable levels set by Health Canada in 63% of the females and males under 15 and in 39% of females 15 to 44. In 6% of males 15 years and older, they also had a higher proportion of PCBs in their bodies than the acceptable level as set out by Health Canada.

The point is the evidence of this report is actually calling on society and the world community to take actions. POPs are carbon based chemical compounds that are products and byproducts of human industry. They are highly toxic substances that cause a wide array of adverse health effects.

This motion is about human health, that the pollutants we create affect others. The member for Davenport encouraged all members of the House to speak aggressively about pollution prevention, the reduction of pollution and ultimately eliminating all persistent organic pollutants.

POPs have what we refer to as a grasshopper effect. They are released in the environment through evaporation and deposit and are transported through the atmosphere to regions far from the original source. The colder the climate, the less these substances tend to evaporate. As a result the north is a cold trap for them. POPs can be found in people and animals living in regions such as the Arctic, thousands of kilometres from where POPs are produced.

This phenomenon is especially prominent in the north. As a result Inuit women have up to eight times higher levels of PCBs in their breast milk than women in southern Canada. These are well over the limits permissible by Health Canada. Some POPs are known to affect the liver, the nervous system, the kidneys, the reproductive system and the immune system. They are endocrine disrupters or hormone disrupting substances as we aggressively discussed as we went through clause by clause consideration of the Environmental Protection Act.

No man is an island. POPs is a global problem that requires global solutions. I point to the DDT pesticide which has been used to combat malaria in a number of developing nations. Even though DDT has been banned for a number of years in this country it ends up in our food chains. As a wealthy industrialized country it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we develop replacements for pesticides such as DDT so that we can change practices for combating diseases such as malaria. It is our responsibility to help the developing world, which has real concerns with respect to malaria, to do that.

What has been done so far? At the Rio earth summit in 1992 we began to discuss the issue. Agenda 21, including chapter 19 which called for an intergovernmental forum on chemical safety to promote and co-ordinate international work on chemicals, was adopted. Countries were committed to formulating a joint plan of action.

In June 1998 the intergovernmental negotiating committee met in Montreal to begin laying the framework for a global plan. Negotiators were asked to target a short list of the 12 most dangerous POPs known as the dirty dozen. They were also assigned the task of defining a procedure for identifying new substances as candidates for future global action.

What needs to be done? The government needs to act quickly. The persistence of these substances and their accumulation in living tissue means that each year that passes without a solution will result in decades of additional exposure.

A second round of international treaty negotiation talks will take place in February 1999. A deal must be reached by the year 2000. The only effective solution is to phase out and eliminate POPS as the source and to begin now. CEPA, as is currently written, does not accomplish this fact and thereby continues to fail to protect the most exposed and vulnerable in the north.

We need to phase them out. We need to find replacements. We need to change practices. We need a stronger CEPA, one that assesses and classifies new substances quickly before they further contaminate the north. The proposed system for assessing substances is weak. Attempts to improve the new CEPA bill have been voted down by the government on a number of occasions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment spoke in committee. She said it was perhaps too premature to include any kind of mechanism to address endocrine disrupters or hormone disrupting substances, many of which are POPs. I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that in defeating amendments tabled by my colleague from the NDP, the member for York North, and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, supported by the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, and me, she had to build a coalition with Reform. The parliamentary secretary is now building an environmental coalition with a party that is still challenging the science on climate change.

The government is now in the sixth year of its mandate and has still yet to pass a piece of environmental legislation other than the MMT bill which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million. The government needs to develop an environmental agenda.

Often the government likes to criticize the Conservative government's record between the years 1983 and 1993. Our record on the environment is the establishment of the green plan, our leadership on the Montreal protocol which banned ozone depleting substances, and our leadership in bringing forth the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for the control and use of toxins. Our crowning achievement with respect to the environment was in the area of acid rain.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to report that Canada is actively pursuing initiatives and making great progress in the management and control of persistent organic pollutants or POPs, particularly with respect to foreign sources of substances that are impacting on the health and environment of Canada.

In speaking to this item I wish to begin by thanking the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Natural Resources for the effective way in which we have all worked together to make the POPs protocol a success story for Canada. I also thank the member for Davenport for raising this very important issue.

Our tracking of the POPs issue indicates that we are also making progress in aspects of great importance for the federal government, such as health, children and aboriginal peoples.

Although Canada has banned or greatly cut back on the use of POPs in the Canadian North, other countries continue to use them.

POPs continue to be a problem for Canadians since they are carried by air currents from sources outside Canada and are deposited in Canadian ecosystems, particularly in northern Canada.

Canada has contributed significantly to the science that has enabled us to substantiate the need for international action and agreements on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. We have stopped releases from most Canadian sources of POPs and reduced domestic emissions of heavy metals. Unfortunately domestic efforts are not enough to protect the peoples of the Arctic.

Reducing POPs in Canada's Arctic requires concerted international efforts. Canada has played a leading role in using the scientific information contained in the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report and AMAP reports to achieve international action on contaminants reaching the Arctic.

Regional protocols on the reduction of POPs and heavy metals have been drawn up under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

These protocols, signed in June 1998 by 34 countries, including Canada, the United States, and the countries of Eastern and Western Europe, as well as the former Soviet Union, are the first enforceable major multinational agreements aimed at protecting the environment and human health by imposing limits on the release of POPs and heavy metals.

These protocols will serve as a model for even broader world-wide participation.

In June, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, Canada hosted the initial session to negotiate a global POPs agreement, which is expected to be signed around the year 2000.

Canada strongly supports this effort and is committed to playing a vigorous leadership role. The government is committed to a continuing leadership role in moving the UNEP global initiative to a successful conclusion, for it is only through the concerted and vigorous action of all countries to eliminate or reduce their emissions of hazardous substances that Canada can achieve the protection it requires from these chemicals that know no borders.

By signing and ratifying the protocols, Canada demonstrates its ongoing and serious commitment to actively looking for ways to lead an international campaign on health and environmental issues of concern to Canadians.

We must play a leadership role in these initiatives in order to ensure that the serious risks POPs represent for the environment and for the health of Canadians, particularly aboriginal peoples in the north, are taken into account. This approach is consistent with the priority our government accords to native issues.

Canada's signature of the protocols will be an important step towards signature of the UNEP global agreement on POPs.

At the recent joint meeting of ministers of energy and environment in Halifax, all provinces and territories supported the expeditious ratification of the POPs protocol.

It is the government's intent to conclude the ratification of the POPs protocol, as well as the companion heavy metals protocol, before the end of this year. Indeed, Canada will be one of the first, if not the first country to formally accept the controls on POPs specified in this agreement.

I want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, because of the hour I will make only some brief remarks in thanking hon. colleagues for their interventions and input today. The members for Lethbridge, Yukon and Fundy—Royal brought out a number of additional issues and dimensions which are important. I concur with them that we should have an approach which is as broad as possible in resolving the question of pollution.

The member for Lethbridge dwelt on the question of contaminated lands. His observations reflect the reality there, as did those of the member for Yukon when referring to over 200 national defence sites that have been abandoned.

I have some difficulty in understanding completely the logic of the member for Lethbridge. He said that he and his party cannot support this motion because it is not comprehensive enough and does not deal with all aspects of the issue that we are facing, not only on the POPs but also the contaminated lands and related issues. It seems to me that there is a choice between incremental action and supporting any possible motion that moves the agenda forward or no action at all. It escapes my ability to follow the logic of the Reform Party in this respect, and I must say in other respects also.

I would like to thank the member for Yukon for her very kind remarks and friendly suggestions. She certainly brought to our attention the situation that is now being faced in the north, which probably was the same situation faced in the south several decades ago. We should draw some lessons from what the northerners are telling us as to what they are observing so that we can see the necessity in prevention and that the north retains its pristine quality. Possibly through that lesson we can regain the lost ground in the south.

I also thank the member for Fundy—Royal who got a little carried away with partisan remarks which is understandable. He felt it was necessary to put on record the achievements of the previous government. We have not forgotten that record. He certainly reinforced the theme of this motion and provided a helpful observation which I will take very seriously.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for the good news she gave the House and for emphasizing the importance of co-operation in achieving something which, because of its international nature, is extremely difficult. Canada has developed a skill for which we are highly respected abroad, namely the capacity to bring diverging interests together in the pursuit of the environmental agenda.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being after 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)