Mr. Speaker, I find it strange how this could possibly hamper the process.
First, with respect to the previous government, the regulatory process is very complex and it takes a long time. I have outlined in fact why it takes a long time.
Second, there is new evidence which demonstrates that PFOS is a real problem in the Canadian context. We need to act now, rather than later.
When we put together the new evidence, as I said earlier, a great deal of time is taken to actually address the situation. I do not believe that we can wait that long.
Third, my understanding is that CEPA is not looking to ban the product. As I understand it, it is looking to list it, which is not the exact same thing. It can be listed as a toxic substance, but that in itself does not deal with the issue nor does it take it out of the environment entirely.
When I was the minister responsible for international cooperation, I was responsible at the time to deal with the issue of POPs, persistent organic pollutants. As part of Canada's response to the environment on the international scene, I was responsible to work with POPs in developing countries.
The reason that Canada was involved in investing money with developing countries to eliminate the use of persistent organic pollutants is because they are landing in northern Canada. We have a very direct interest in this issue. The reason why POPs are banned is because they are persistent and they stay in the environment. They are bioaccumulative.
Canada was very aggressively involved with developing countries with regard to the elimination of POPs, first because they were bad for everyone in the world, but also because they were landing in our north.
Exactly the same thing is happening with PFOS. In fact, as I said earlier, this substance is even more persistent than some of the other ones. PFOS is harder to get rid of in the environment and in the system. It takes decades and maybe never. PFOS affects children more than it affects adults. Quite frankly, I do not see how a bill that is addressing a very serious issue could hamper the work that CEPA is doing.
I presume and I know that the review certainly can integrate whatever decision the House makes. Quite frankly, Parliament can make decisions that are over and above whatever CEPA is doing. I do not see how that would hamper it.
As I said, this substance is serious. It is bad. In Stockholm, the United States, even the company 3M has stopped using it. In fact, Environment Canada in 2004 stated that it should be quasi-listed and virtually eliminated. Now we are talking about listing it as a toxin. That is not sufficient.
I think that this substance is bad for children, bad for our environment, and bad for the country. We should do as other countries have already done and continue to do. It should be listed.