House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we are now debating an NDP amendment, not this point. My colleague is all over the place with this, but she is not actually debating the issue in question.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call her to order, so that the debate can remain relevant to the topic.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
I thank the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for his point of order. I am sure he will agree that justice is a broad topic.
I am sure the hon. member for Beaches—East York will come to the point of the debate soon.
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an indication of exactly what I was trying to say. We cannot deal with the amendment without dealing with all the other aspects I was discussing. With all due respect, what I was saying was very much appropriate. If we prevent crime in the first place, we do not have to get to the point of having to have reverse onus at all.
This is very important with respect to youth. Chile has an agreement with Quebec to take the Quebec model and to use it in Chile. Maybe the government might want to learn something from some of our own provinces and how they are applying prevention and rehabilitation so we do not get to the point of discussing the issue of reverse onus.
We must address the growing problem of domestic violence in the country as well. I know the hon. member does not want to hear about it, but the reality is that 53% of all women who are victims of a violent crime were victims of a common assault, 13% were victims of sexual assault and 11% were victims of assault with a weapon. Not all of these are preventable, necessarily, but most of them are if we were to spend some money in education with respect to problems with domestic violence. However, the government instead has chosen to cut and to change the mandate of the Status of Women Canada and eliminate not only the issue of equality, but the research and advocacy needed in this area and the kind of work that is required. The United Nations has pointed that out already.
Again, in order to change a social condition that exists in our country, we have to ensure that these kinds of crimes can be prevented. However, the government does not seem to be interested in these things.
We all know that women are considerably more likely than men to be victims of violent crimes, such as sexual assault and criminal harassment.
Women are also more often victimized in their homes, in communities and in prisons, as we have seen more recently. There were 224,000 women who said they feared for their lives as a result of a violent spouse. These are things that can be assisted. Rehabilitation will work in those areas in many cases. We should look at the conditions of poverty, mental health and other situations.
Furthermore, aboriginal women are more than three times likely to report being victims of spousal violence than their non-aboriginal counterparts, 24% of aboriginal women, or almost a quarter.
Due to the often cyclical nature of domestic violence, women involved in abusive relationships are often caught in a revolving door of abuse and refuge. The government is doing little to nothing in the way of prevention. In fact, it has gone the other way around. Portions of this omnibus bill attempt to do that, but I do not think it addresses it to the extent we need.
The government has proposed an American style “three strikes and you're out” law to jail certain offenders indefinitely. In fact, those particularly affected would include aboriginal women with addictions or histories of abuse who have acted out in violence and have inadequate access to healing. Again, these are areas of prevention; women who are incarcerated, larger numbers in the aboriginal communities. A great deal of issues are not being addressed by prevention.
In part, the government is criminalizing the poor and mentally ill as a result of this rather than ensuring access to affordable housing, incomes, training, support, mental health services and assistance. Mental health is one of the areas that receives the least attention and the least funds whenever it comes to health dollars. Yet more than 50% of all those incarcerated, as we know, have mental health issues. Again, this goes to prevention and it goes to the civility of the society.
According to Statistics Canada, the number of Canadians spending time behind bars increased in 2005-06 for the first time in more than a decade. This increase is due to the larger number of individuals in remand, serving time waiting their trials or sentencing. In fact, the number of adults in remand rose 12% in 2005-06. This means that for the first time, the number of Canadians awaiting their trial or sentencing outnumber those serving actual jail time.
The result is that offenders are spending less time in custody because courts are giving credit for time spent in remand when determining the length of a sentence and no rehabilitation is taking place while they are there.
If the Conservative government is so tough on crime, why is it that jail sentences for those found guilty of a crime is decreasing, while time spent in jail for those waiting to have a fair trial is increasing? Again, while they are waiting for justice, no rehabilitation is being offered at this time, which goes to the problem of recidivism.
It seems that the Conservatives' attempts to play partisan games with the Criminal Code is holding up more than legislation in this House. It is also holding up Canadians' rights to fair and speedy trials.
The number of women serving jail time is also on the rise. In fact, the fastest growing prison population worldwide is women. In particular, it is racialized. These are young, poor women and women with mental and cognitive disabilities. These escalating numbers are quite obviously linked to barriers in health care, education and social services. Again, these are areas that the government is ignoring, quite deliberately. Again it goes to the issue of rehabilitation, which means that we would not need to use the reverse onus or the draconian kinds of laws that we are so bound to use.
The number of Canadians incarcerated in 2005-06 was 110 per 100,000, which is a far cry from the United States where it is 738 per 100,000. The Americans have been going down the road of incarceration for many years and, in fact, they are beginning to look the other way because it has not worked. Increasing the jail population does not work. It does not prevent crime. It does not help to rehabilitate criminals. It does not reduce crime on our streets.
I would really like to challenge the government on this. Not only does the reverse onus not work and, as other members have mentioned, may not be constitutional, but, more important, it does not address the problem of the security of our communities, which is the main point.
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way and a lot of what she said was incorrect. However, I would agree with her principle of being proactive, which is why I personally, in my riding, was involved with a number of announcements focusing on high risk youth.
She was correct in sharing the importance of dealing with the problem proactively, even at the early stages of an individual's life. That is why we have provided, as a government, programs that, unfortunately, the Liberal government ignored for 13 long years. From the comments that the member made, the Liberals knew that it was very necessary to be proactive but they ignored that. In 21 short months, we have accomplished much more than they did over 13 years.
It is very disappointing to hear that she knows what should have been done but it was not done.
I want to focus though--
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
She was the minister, so there was a huge responsibility on her shoulders. Why did she not do it when she had that opportunity?
However, I would like her to talk about these very dangerous, high risk people who reverse onus would apply to. Why would she not want to see them dealt with appropriately? Why would she want to see them released back into the community with zero consequence, the traditional Liberal hugathon philosophy? Why would she want to see that go on? Why would she not want to get serious about high risk offenders who will reoffend and who will put our communities at risk?
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not right when he says that we did nothing with respect to crime prevention.
The national crime prevention program was one of the best in this country. In fact, if I am not mistaken, I believe the hon. member's government reduced funding to that program with its first budget. Other programs came forward from the mayor of the city of Toronto with respect to gun violence in that city and other areas.
Some of the programs that were put forward by the Liberals were not renewed by the government, not to mention the fact that the government eliminated the national child care program that would have helped children with mental health issues receive assistance and be identified early on when they are in an early childhood development environment where they could receive help.
For me, it is more about the overall societal responsibility to prevention. It is not just one little program, a one off in one part of the country that may deal with it. It is an overall effort with respect to the prevention of crime for domestic violence, which, by the way, the government has done nothing about with respect to women. As I said before, it has eliminated advocacy and any other work with respect to women.
When it comes to high risk offenders, there is no question that we need to address that issue, but we must also be extremely careful as to who we identify because rehabilitation for people is still one of the best ways to prevent crime if we want to address crime seriously.
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments very carefully and appreciated a number of them to the effect that the government's supposed tough on crime approach is actually an American style approach on crime that just fills up prisons and does not tackle the violent crime issue.
What about rehabilitation? What about housing? What about mental health? In comparison to the amount that the government is investing in the criminalization part of the bill, the amount for rehabilitation and the preventive programs for youth has been very puny.
What confuses me about the member's comments is that we are speaking to the amendment that places a reverse onus on convicted persons to prove that they should not be considered dangerous offenders. Of course, we had supported the other--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Beaches—East York has 20 seconds to respond.
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said with respect to prevention and all of the programs, it is true that is the way to go in this country. As far as I am concerned, what happens--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate the amendment that has come forward from the NDP.
I congratulate the member for Windsor—Tecumseh who is our justice critic and who moved this amendment to delete this particular section of the bill. He has been outstanding in his work, not only on the justice committee but in the House. In fact, he was acknowledged by his peers in the recent award as the most knowledgeable member in the House. I think there is no question about his work on the justice file and the rational and intelligent arguments that he has brought forward to counter some of the absurd rhetoric, the political spin that has been put out by the Conservative government on its so-called crime agenda.
It has been refreshing to see how the member for Windsor—Tecumseh approaches his work and how he really puts forward, not a partisan interest but a public interest in terms of what should be the justice agenda and how the Criminal Code should be amended.
There is no better example of that than what was originally called Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act, and is now all wrapped up in this omnibus bill called Bill C-2, in which Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act, is still a part.
In the early days of debate on that bill, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh pointed out that there were certain aspects of the bill that would likely not survive a charter challenge. He also made it very clear in the House and in committee, and tried to gain support from other parties, that the so-called reverse onus provision for dangerous offenders or offenders who had been convicted for a third time and placing the onus on them to show why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders was a dramatic change in our justice system and was something that likely would not survive a charter challenge. The member brought forward very clear and intelligent arguments as why it was going down a blind alley, why it was a false lead.
It is very interesting to note the response of the government. In actual fact, it could not care less about that. It could not care less whether this was actually something that, from a legal point of view, from the point of view of upholding the long-established Criminal Code of Canada and the direction and the precedents that have been set over the years, could be reconciled and be credible in that tradition.
I think we all know now, and there is a gaining understanding across Canada, why the government could not care less. It is because this so-called crime agenda is nothing more than political optics. It is nothing more than pushing people's buttons. It is nothing more than trying to create a climate of fear in Canada about crime.
On behalf of the NDP, I am very proud of the fact that we take this issue from the point of view of protecting the public interest, but not going down this crazy road of creating a climate of fear and bringing forward proposals that the government knows are doomed to fail.
We brought forward this amendment today to once again put on the record that although we have supported other provisions of the bill as being something that are needed, this particular provision is something that should not be sanctioned in Parliament.
I know I will hear a great deal of rhetoric from the Conservative members saying that the NDP is weak on crime, the NDP is this or that, but let it be said that the NDP is here to stand for reasoned arguments and for amendments that will actually be effective in dealing with dangerous offenders. The NDP is here to protect that public interest and to hold the government to account for failing to deal with all of the preventive measures that are needed in our society to build safe and healthy communities, which is why we put forward this amendment--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Vancouver East. When we next return to the study of Bill C-2 there will be five and a half minutes left in her allotted time.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
When we were last studying Bill C-307, the hon. member for Burlington had the floor and he has eight minutes remaining in debate.
The hon. member for Burlington.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I concluded my conversation on the bill that my party and I will be supporting when it comes to a vote.
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-307, the Phthalate Control Act, essentially seeks to better control, if not to forbid, the use of phthalates in a wide range of commonly used objects because those substances represent a risk to the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.
The initial text of the bill obliged the Minister of the Environment to make regulations prohibiting the use of three types of phthalates. The prohibition applies first to BBP, which is found in many products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used. The second product the bill seeks to prohibit is DBP, which is quite often found in cosmetics as well as in the products mentioned previously that are put in the mouth of a child or infant when used. The third product this bill seeks to prohibit is DEHP, which is also found in cosmetics, but especially in medical devices. However, the bill excludes blood bags from this prohibition.
Furthermore, the purpose of the bill is to amend Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to include the three aforementioned products, BBP, DBP and DEHP, on the list of toxic substances.
Phthalates are part of a family of chemical products mainly intended for industrial use. Phthalates are found in a number of common consumer products such as adhesives, vinyl flooring, lubricating oils, capacitors, detergents, solvents, pharmaceutical products, electrical wires and cables and cosmetic products such as perfume, deodorant, shaving lotion, shampoo, hair spray and nail polish.
The use of phthalates as softening agents is another common application for these products. Most PVC-based—that is, polyvinyl chloride—rigid, semi-rigid and flexible articles also contain phthalates.
The proportion of phthalates can be as high as 50% in some products, for example, plastic bags, window frames, food wrap, raincoats, shower curtains, rubber boots, garden hoses, bath toys and medical devices.
The toxicity level of phthalates varies depending on the kind of compound. DEHP phthalates have a higher toxicity potential than the other two. The main effects of phthalates reported in experiments conducted on various animal species are testicular atrophy, decreased fertility and a lower fetal weight. Some researchers also believe that phthalates can be carcinogenic.
According to a report by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, experts have concluded that BBP has little or no effect on reproduction and development. However, for DEHP and, to a lesser degree, DBP, the results arouse more concern. The use of various medical devices that contain DEHP raises some concern about the effects on the development of premature male babies who need intensive and prolonged care.
Let us now talk about the precautionary principle. This principle was officially recognized and confirmed by the international community in the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted at Rio in 1992, a convention that was ratified by Canada.
According to this principle, when there are sufficient grounds to believe that an activity or product could cause serious and irreversible damage to health or the environment, mitigation measures must be taken until the effects can be documented. Such measures may reduce or put an end to certain activities or ban certain products.
In Canada, these phthalates are no longer present in toys or objects that could be put in a child's mouth. In 1998, following a study of the risks associated with objects intended for children, Health Canada concluded that the amount of phthalates found in flexible PVC products could pose a risk to the health and safety of children. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have since been obliged to ensure that flexible plastic soothers and rattles are free of DEHP.
As to DEHP in some products designed for use in children's education, we think the precautionary principle demands that they be banned.
With respect to DEHP and phthalates in medical devices, we must protect at-risk groups by doing everything in our power to promote the use of alternative DEHP-free products. Nevertheless, until such phthalate-free medical devices are on the market, Quebec's public health institute does not recommend restricting access to certain treatments or procedures, because the health benefits outweigh the dangers associated with DEHP exposure. Until suitable substitutes become more readily available, we believe that it may be risky to ban DEHP in all medical devices, excluding blood bags.
I would now like to discuss phthalates in cosmetics. DEHP and DBP are present in perfume, deodorant, after-shave lotion, shampoo, aerosol sprays and nail polish.
Many environmental groups and consumer associations have strongly denounced the use of phthalates in cosmetics. According to Health Canada, DBP in cosmetics presents no health risks in concentrations of less than 10%. In 2004, Health Canada announced its intention to amend cosmetics regulations in order to require cosmetics manufacturers and distributors to list the ingredients on the product label. According to our investigation, this change, which would have at least informed the consumer, never went into effect.
To summarize, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-307. There has not been enough research to date on the effects of phthalates on human health. While awaiting more precise answers regarding the health risks associated with phthalates, the government should limit as much as possible the exposure of vulnerable populations to various chemical compounds, as a precautionary measure.
We note that some of the bans proposed in the original bill have been amended, since they went too far, given that reliable, effective and safe replacement products were unavailable for certain medical devices.
It has always been clear to the Bloc Québécois that implementation of the bill tabled by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley should not give rise to more health problems than it solves.
The Bloc Québécois position is supported by the Institut de santé publique du Québec, which stated in a 2004 report that until medical devices without phthalates are on the market, it is not recommended or even warranted to deprive the public of some types of treatments or procedures that can be beneficial to health and whose outcome outweighs the dangers of exposure to DEHP.
The Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C-307 responds to the concerns of the Institut de santé publique du Québec with respect to medical equipment and that it provides protection as well as fulfilling a need. We will support it.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague and the member for Burlington for their support on this bill.
I want to start off my comments by speaking to the whole idea of the precautionary principle, which is the philosophy behind this kind of legislation. Earlier we were talking about some of the problems we have with reverse onus, but in this case it makes sense to have reverse onus. When a company manufactures a product and there are concerns about the potential harmful effects of chemicals or toxins on the health of human beings or the environment, the manufacturer and those who are involved in producing the product should provide clear evidence that there will be no harmful effects on human health or the environment.
In fact, the precautionary principle has been adopted as a guiding principle by our government, but we have yet to see a commitment from the government on some aspects in terms of the environment. This is something that Canadians should demand from their government and from companies. We must ensure that we not only hear about the precautionary principle, but that indeed we live by the precautionary principle.
There was a time when manufacturers would come up with new ways of manufacturing things and they would say they would wait and see what happened, but that time has ended. We need to be more vigilant as citizens and consumers, as advocates for public health. We must ensure that when new products come forward they are not detrimental to our health or to the environment in general.
I wanted to start off by making those statements. Canadians understand the concept, but I want them to be extremely vigilant and vocal in asserting that the precautionary principle is not simply something on paper, but that it actually has a life of its own and is being adopted.
Our party's environment critic, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has put forward a bill that adopts the best practices of the precautionary principle. His bill would ensure that, in this case, the toxic substances that currently are on the shelves of some of our stores by way of children's toys were not allowed to exist. We believe and obviously my colleague believes that should be the case.
Phthalates are found in my things. They are ubiquitous, as we have heard from other members. They are in plastic softeners in children's toys, in nail polish and in fragrances. They seem to be everywhere.
There have been problems in the past with substances that were initially seen as miracle consumer products, but down the road they actually had a detrimental effect on our environment. It is the same case with phthalates. We know they have the potential to harm and when we employ the precautionary principle they should be eliminated.
I have to say that there was some compromise on this bill by my colleague. We would have preferred to have an all out ban on phthalates, but we understand when trying to get legislation through that we do have to compromise and there has been a compromise made on this bill.
Not only is it important to have this kind of legislation, but in fact, this has been done in other jurisdictions. The EU has banned phthalates since 2003. California banned them in children's toys in the last months. Health Canada does warn of exposure in medical tubing to children and vulnerable populations.
However, I think the time has come for legislation to ensure that it is not just a matter of giving warnings, prescriptions and advisories, but that our country actually has some teeth in regard to this. That is why this is an important piece of legislation. We believe there is evidence to show that there are potential detriments to human health. What is so important to note is that this is about the most vulnerable of our population. This is about children.
I am the proud father of two boys, twelve and nine, who are very healthy. I want to know that my government is doing everything it can to protect their health and certainly the health of the children in our population. If we are not doing that, I would submit, we are not doing our job.
One point some people have brought forward is that when we get into the area of banning something or taking a product off the shelf, it is very difficult because we have imports from all over the world. We have the situation of toys being imported from China. My colleague from Victoria was telling me recently about her grandson, who played with the Thomas the train toy for years and loved it.
As we have found out, there are toxins in that particular toy. It had to be removed. The precautionary principle, if it were employed, would ensure that this kind of practice and this kind of manufacturing would not be allowed to happen. We would have proper scrutiny.
Also, it should be noted when we are looking at withdrawing toxins in manufacturing that it is possible. I will give members the example of what has happened in the medical field with phthalates. In fact, hospitals in this country and across the United States have labelled themselves phthalate-free.
In other words, for all of the softeners that were used in rubber gloves and the medical devices that are everywhere now in our hospitals and health care centres, the hospitals took on the issue. They have made sure their workplaces and the products they are using are phthalate-free. This is an example of how we can actually make a difference if we get behind an initiative.
In that situation, it turns out, new markets opened up because alternatives were found. New products were designed. So as we might guess from this, changeover is possible and banning these products from being used does not create any kind of economic calamity. In fact, it opens up possibilities for new products. That is important to note.
When manufacturers have clear rules in front of them and understand what the rules are, they follow those rules and adapt to them. I think that is what has been missing here. Let me just again give members the example from the past six months in regard to all the products we have been importing from other countries, many from China, where there have been issues around concerns about toxins and human health, be it lead, paint or other toxins.
It is important to support this bill, not only because of its effects in terms of the products I have mentioned and not only because of protecting human health for our most vulnerable, but because of what it does when it says what is possible. It is possible, if governments and legislators wish to, to make sure that the products we buy and the food we consume are safe for all of us.
I look forward to the support of all members of Parliament for this bill. I congratulate my colleague on a job well done in protecting the health of all Canadians.
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who spoke earlier, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak about this important piece of proposed legislation.
Before I begin to speak about Bill C-307, I would like to congratulate my Liberal colleagues in Ontario for addressing the issue of potentially harmful chemicals.
As has been publicized, the Ontario McGuinty government's new toxins reduction strategy includes a range of measures to protect the health of Ontarians. Instead of waiting for the government to act, the provincial government in Ontario will appoint an expert medical and scientific panel to advise which toxins should be the focus of immediate attention, action and possible reductions. The Ontario government intends to do this immediately while new toxin reduction legislation is in the developmental stage.
An early priority for the expert panel will be to provide recommendations on how best to address bisphenol A, widely used, as we have heard, in plastic baby bottles and similar consumer products.
The Ontario government is also undertaking a number of initiatives that will be included under a toxins reduction strategy to help protect Ontarians from potentially harmful environmental toxins, including: first, legislation to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides, to be introduced in the spring of next year; second, working with Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association to identify, target and reduce the number of cancer-causing agents released into our environment; third, the imposition of tough new standards to reduce the amount of harmful air emissions on 14 toxins; fourth, replacing coal-fired electricity in Ontario, phasing it out completely by 2014; and last, implementing new province-wide standards and rules to protect children from exposure to elevated lead levels that may be present in the drinking water system of older neighbourhoods, older schools and older day care centres or facilities.
The Ontario government is already receiving praise for this recent announcement from various groups, including Environmental Defence and the Ontario College of Family Physicians. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Government of Ontario for putting the health of Ontarians first.
I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of my federal Liberal colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. His private member's bill, Bill C-439, proposes to prohibit the use of bisphenol A in certain products and to correspondingly amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
There is considerable data which suggests that any exposure to bisphenol A is damaging to human health. It appears that the risks of using this toxic chemical outweigh the benefits. I believe the government should act now to regulate a ban on bisphenol A.
Surely Bill C-307 should warrant the same attention as Bill C-439, and it is my hope that the House will support both of these important pieces of proposed legislation.
After considerable discussion, debate and amendments in committee, Bill C-307, the phthalate control act, is now a strong bill, which all parties should certainly consider supporting.
I would like to congratulate the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his ongoing contribution to the toxins debate in Canada, particularly with regard to phthalates. I would also like to congratulate the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, including, of course, my Liberal colleagues, who have played a very important role in facilitating the successful outcome of the committee deliberations.
Bill C-307 deals with three major chemical compounds, part of a large group of chemicals known as phthalates. These substances, which were examined under the bill, are DEHP, BBP and DBP. For those of us without a scientific background, they are plasticizers, substances which enhance flexibility in plastic compounds. They are used in thousands of products, ranging from children's toys to medical devices to cosmetics.
Studies have linked such substances to infertility and other health related issues, but the three substances considered in Bill C-307 have been evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the past. One of the substances of the three, DEHP, was in fact designated toxic through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The environment and sustainable development committee has heard that not all types of exposure were in fact evaluated by the federal government studies when looking at the other two substances. Therefore, proposed Bill C-307 calls for a more comprehensive reassessment that will include exposure through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics. This will help ensure the assessment of the cumulative effects of these substances on human beings.
Something which we are just beginning to grapple with in the scientific community is the question of whether we are able to measure a multiplicity of exposures, these compounds themselves, or how these compounds interact with other compounds, which are in our environment at large in Canada. Essentially, the study is of the cumulative effects of all these factors in combination with one another.
As I mentioned earlier, phthalates are found in thousands of products in our environment such as toys, medical devices, cosmetics, but also in many other items such as shower curtains and the vinyl that we find in products, for instance the vinyl dashboard in motor vehicles. We are concerned by the multiple exposure to phthalates, which perhaps in isolation may not have the impact which is feared on human health, but in combination can be particularly toxic. These repeated exposures could be enough to cause harm to human health.
We know that certain other countries, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned previously, including the entire European Union, have tighter restrictions on chemicals such as phthalates than Canada currently does. It is also fair to say that when Bill C-307 arrived at committee this past March, all members were in favour of closer scrutiny of these compounds, but the now amended Bill C-307 is in better form than it earlier was.
All members of the environment and sustainable development committee should be commended for introducing and passing amendments to the bill. It is our hope that the House will see fit to pass this important legislation.
Phthalate Control ActPrivate Members' Business
Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry Ontario
Conservative
Guy Lauzon ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-307. It is also an honour for me to be part of a government that takes its responsibilities, works with them and works with the opposition parties to ensure this minority government works in a truly effective manner.
Much has been said about committees not working or functioning as well as they could be. The truth is, when we get the cooperation from the opposition parties on committees, they work extremely well. This is a case in point when we look at Bill C-307.
We took a bill that was seriously flawed and when we received the cooperation from the opposition parties, under the leadership of maybe the best environment minister we have had in centuries, along with his very able parliamentary secretary, it was made into legislation that could be truly effective to ensure the health of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
This should be an example to the opposition to quit the obstruction in the other committees. We can make some progress if we can only get the cooperation of our members opposite.
I will not go into the technicalities of the bill. I congratulate our minister and his parliamentary secretary and all members of the committee for their cooperation. I urge my colleagues to continue this cooperation and ensure that this minority government succeeds.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Resuming debate. Before I recognize the sponsor of the bill, I want to give fair warning that these will be the concluding remarks.
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has five minutes for his right of rebuttal.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a long road that brought us to this point with a private member's bill that was crafted in collaboration with many of the people in our country who are concerning themselves about the toxins in our environment, particularly those toxins that affect our children and vulnerable population.
There are a few things that have come to light through the process of this bill which I think are informative to all members of Parliament and to Canadians as to how it is we craft law in this country and what is encouraged and what is resisted. We brought some fundamental principles into this piece of legislation, principles that have not yet been seen before by Canadian legislators.
One of the primary principles is the precautionary principle, a principle that allows Canada and Canadian officials to finally make decisions to protect the health and well-being of Canadians when there is evidence that there may be damage done to the health of our population. There is probably no better example of how wrong a government can be and how long Canadians can be misled than the debate that occurred and existed for too long over smoking.
Year after year the big tobacco lobbyists worked members of Parliament, particularly the then Conservatives or whatever they were called at the time, and the Liberals to encourage them to not believe the science that was before us, to not believe that there should be some precaution in the way that we legislate and allow smoking in Canadian society.
There were detrimental effects, lives lost and families suffered because of the negligence, wilful and otherwise, of politicians who preceded us, some still in this place. It was absolutely shameful.
We created this bill to ban a plastic softener, for goodness' sake, that allows certain plastics to be a little more malleable, which is all well and good in and of itself, but has these unintended consequences of causing a whole series of terrible effects on the health and well-being of individuals, particularly children.
The tragic irony was that one of the few ways to release this chemical into a human system was mastication, actually chewing on the plastic. These chemicals were put into children's toys that by design were meant to be chewed. It was, of course, not the intention of the chemical manufacturers or the toy manufacturers to do this, but lo and behold, it happened.
We know there are other colleagues in this place attempting to do the same, to provide Canadians with laws and practices that actually defend our interests, not just the interests of narrow lobbyist groups but to defend the health and well-being of Canadians. This is something that is long overdue.
It is long overdue in a Parliament that has seen dysfunction time and time again from the government side and I will give one instance to close my remarks, and this should be instructive to all Canadians and MPs trying to do the right thing.
We saw officials under the direction of the government come forward at committee and make claims that we could not possibly ban these chemicals because it would put the well-being of Canadians at stake because some of these softeners existed in medical devices. And if we were to ban this chemical, it would be taken out of the medical devices and there would be no medical devices and Canadians “would die on the operating table as a result of this bill”.
At the very same hearing we had witnesses from the United States, nurses and practitioners, who had in their hands medical devices that were free of phthalates. They had lists of hospitals in the U.S. that had banned this chemical entirely from their operations.
The parliamentary secretary is nodding no, when he knows it is in fact true, that we had the devices available and we had a government sticking its head in the sand and willing not to do it.
What is amazing to me is that when we write legislation well and truly try to get parliamentarians to work together, those who resist suddenly seek to take credit. I have heard, particularly Liberal and Conservative members time and time again patting themselves on the back, congratulating themselves. I suppose when we do something right, everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and everyone wants to feel like they win.
At long last this bill, which should pass through this place, will become law and protect Canadians into the future. We are proud to have it.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.