Debates of April 7th, 2017

Disposition of Prima Facie Question of Privilege

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go on, I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

I want to remind hon. members there are others who want to speak to this. If they could be as concise and brief as possible, it would certainly be appreciated by all.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Obviously, I have some points to make, but I will attempt to be as brief as is feasible.

I want to speak in support of the member's question of privilege. It is centred around this idea, which seems to be a recurring theme that we are seeing from the government, that somehow it will try to twist or use the procedures in place in the House to avoid the idea of accountability. This is a corollary to that because it is avoiding being accountable to the members of this House, and therefore is breaching the privileges of the members of this House. That is what it boils down to.

I want to go back to explain how this began, because I think it is important to start from the beginning. I would remind everyone that we are talking about a breach of members' privileges that occurred. The member for Milton raised it. It was also raised by the member for Beauce. They were prevented from being able to exercise the most basic, most fundamental part of their duties as members of Parliament, which is to vote on behalf of their constituents. They were delayed and prevented from getting here to exercise that most fundamental part of their duties.

I would ask especially the government members to think about the seriousness of that. Had that been two members of the government who had been prevented from attending a vote, and had that led to the government losing a vote, that could have led to the fall of the government, which would lead to an election. That is how serious that contravention of a member's privilege can be. It can be that serious. It can mean the fall of a government. It can mean putting the Canadian people into an election. That is how serious that can be. That is the kind of privilege we are talking about.

I remember in the last Parliament being on the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, when a similar, almost identical, privilege motion was brought by a member of the NDP who is no longer here, Yvon Godin. That had also happened to him, and a number of other members. In that case, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege, and it was referred by the House to PROC, which made it its first priority and dealt with it.

That has always been what has happened. There is a reason that happens. It is a very important issue to deal with, when a members' privileges have been breached, especially when it is talking about the most fundamental part of their duties, exercising their right to vote on behalf of tens of thousands of constituents. In my case, I represent about 140,000 people in my constituency. Others have varying numbers. However, each member represents tens of thousands of constituents. It is the duty of members to exercise that right on behalf of those tens of thousands of citizens who put them in this place, who put their trust in those members, and expect them to exercise that vote. When they are prevented from doing what is the most fundamental part of their duties, it is the most fundamental breach of members' privileges.

That is why that was taken so seriously at that time, and why it should obviously be taken that seriously at this time as well. I have always seen in my time on PROC, that when those matters have been referred there, they have been dealt with as a priority for that reason. As this matter was found to be a prima facie case as well, as it should have been, it should become the most important matter before this House, and should warrant the debates that are required, and a vote to refer it to committee should happen.

I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader stood up to cite procedure which allows the government to use the motion it did to return to government orders in order to avoid this debate and this accountability, I would say. What that means is that all members of this House have had their privileges breached by that action on behalf of the government, because this is a most fundamental question before us, when we deal with a question of privilege. I talked about why it is so important that we deal with these things and that they should be the most primary thing before the House. To use that kind of a motion is a breach of the privileges of the members of this House, and that is why my colleague raised this point.

What I will say at this point is that I understand the situation that is occurring right now. There has been a situation which almost seems like a side issue, but it is not, and I will explain why. There is this matter before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Again, I believe we are starting to hear some points that have already been made. We have collected a lot of information to date. We have one more member who would like to speak to this. I would like to go to that member and then wrap it up so that we could rule on it and bring the decision back as soon as possible.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand your desire to move forward as expeditiously as possible, but I have some points that are important to this that I need to make, and I would ask that you give me that opportunity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If you could make those points briefly and to the point without repeating what has already been said, it would certainly be appreciated. It would allow us to move on to the next member who is waiting to speak.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Understood, Mr. Speaker, and I will certainly make every effort to do so.

As I mentioned earlier, these issues are being dealt with in PROC. If you bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I will not take long to get to it, but it does come to a point, and it is this. The Liberals have this issue before PROC, which obviously they brought forward, to table drop this idea of changing the Standing Orders in the House of Commons.

It appears to me that was done in an attempt to try to ensure the Liberals had less accountability to the House of Commons, which means to the Canadian people we represent. We are here on behalf of them. Because of that, there has been a notice of motion brought forward in PROC, but we are seized by this other matter, with an amendment to the motion that has been put on the floor by a Liberal member to try to ram through the changes they want to make there.

That creates a great difficulty in order for this to be dealt with. More important, it should not be left to a committee of the House of Commons to make that decision as to how it is dealt with. That should primarily be before the House when it has been brought forward. The debate and the vote needs to occur here. That is the proper process.

It again ties back to how this is another use by the government of trying to change the way this place functions to suit its own purposes, much like the motion before PROC. It is an attempt to change the way this place functions to suit its own purposes. In that case, it is to try to ensure that the Prime Minister can avoid accountability to Canadians in question period. It is to try to take away one more day of accountability to Canadians by removing the Fridays. That is what it is about. In this case it is taking the ability for the House to deal with the most fundamental stuff we have to deal with, which is talking about privileges of members of the House of Commons, about their ability to exercise their right to vote on behalf of the constituents who have elected them to represent them in the House.

That is essentially why we have a breech of privilege on a question of privilege. That is what has happened here, and it is just staggering. It is almost hard to keep track of it, but obviously there is a need for us to look at it and deal with it.

I understand we want to keep this brief, but it is important to hear people out on this. This is a critical matter, one that if it is allowed to proceed in the way it has sets this great precedent that members of the government can change the way this place functions to suit themselves. This is the greatest breech of privilege of the members of the House of Commons and therefore the greatest breech of accountability to the Canadian people that I could ever imagine occurring.

I do not think we should try to rush this and say that members should only speak for a couple of minutes and move on to somebody else. That is very troublesome and problematic because of the very fact that we are talking about the heart of democracy, that ability to exercise the franchise that has been entrusted to us. We are put here for that very reason, to represent our fellow citizens.

For those two members who had those abilities breeched in that way and then to have the government try to avoid having the House deal with it in a proper manner, in the way it is supposed to be dealt with, in the way it always has been dealt with and instead have a committee take those responsibilities away from members is almost in itself another breech of privilege. It is the right of all of us to enforce something so fundamental about the way Parliament works, about the privileges of members and therefore the privileges of all Canadians to have their voice heard, to have their members of Parliament stand in this place and have a voice, on behalf of their constituents, that vote whatever that vote might be, to represent their constituents.

From that perspective alone, this is a serious and fundamental matter.

I see you are giving me the wave-off, Mr. Speaker. I understand your desire to try to move on, but I just cannot emphasize enough how important it is that privileges of all members be respected, and the privilege of all members to deal with a motion of privilege needs to be respected. If that cannot be respected, then how can we expect someone to have their privileges upheld in this place, if they have their vote taken away and then the government tries to find ways to procedurally prevent that from being dealt with in a proper manner?

It just speaks to exactly what we are seeing over and over again with this attempt by the government that I mentioned earlier, the one in PROC. We saw it happen in this House with ways to try to avoid accountability, with ways to try to change the ways things function, but with the consent of the people—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please.

To the member, I believe we have collected enough information to come back with a response at this point.

With all due respect, we did promise that the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill would have a few words. I would like to move on to the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill so he can have a few words, and then we can actually bring it back so that we can have an answer for Parliament.

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my right to stand and speak to a matter of privilege in the House of Commons. I understand your desire to try to keep the debate as brief as possible. However, I have points to make, and it is my right to make those points. As I have said, it is the most fundamental part of our duties, and the most fundamental thing we need to deal with is a point of privilege. I find it very troubling, Mr. Speaker, for you to tell me my time is cut off.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If the member would look at page 144 in chapter 3, it does determine that the Speaker does have the right to determine when we have enough information, and I believe the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill has something else to bring forward.

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to address the point you just referenced, which I believe is page 144, which you had read earlier. I thought of intervening at that point, but I was hoping it would not be necessary, but it seems that it perhaps may be.

It indicates there, in the section you read, that the Speaker will hear the member and may permit others who are directly implicated in the matter to intervene. That is the first sentence in that paragraph.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, in our previous discussion about the scope of the question of privilege that this is no longer a question of privilege that simply affects two members. The issue of the effort to rewrite the rules of the House through the back door. Rendering privilege to be a matter that is raised at committee on a motion from a member of the government means that this now affects every single member of the House. Therefore, every member is implicated and has a direct interest in speaking to it.

The construction of the motion is no longer simply one of privilege for the two members, but it is privilege as it affects all of us in this House. I have certainly indicated that what we are discussing is inclusive and, bound into it, the effort to effectively amend the Standing Orders or our rules by changing the way in which privilege is dealt with by making it a government motion at committee that hinders privilege.

I could even go further in that regard. It is actually more sweeping than that, because the Constitution of Canada even addresses the questions of privileges of parliamentarians. It says at section 18 under Legislative Power in part IV:

The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.

My point there being that we are even getting into the realm of constitutional and statutory amendment that the Liberals are trying to do by way of a motion at committee. This is a profound, serious, and deep question.

The other point being that, of course, as I was saying, everyone who is directly involved, which is now all 338 members of this House, are directly implicated, and every one of them should have the right to speak. I say that simply because I have heard the Speaker reference that there was one more member who wished to speak. I am not sure that is the case. I think the Speaker should canvass the House completely.

If we read further:

In instances where more In instances where more than one Member is involved in a question of privilege, the Speaker may postpone discussion until all concerned Members can be present in the House.

This would suggest the Speaker should certainly continue discussion until everyone who is present has had an opportunity to have their say, and then further, if there are others who wish to have their say beyond that.

There has been much weight placed on this sentence:

The Speaker also has the discretion to seek the advice of other Members to help him or her in determining whether there is prima facie a matter of privilege involved which would warrant giving the matter priority of consideration over all other House business. When satisfied, the Speaker will terminate the discussion.

One could certainly place a construction on that, as I would, that when the Speaker is satisfied that there is a prima facie question of privilege, absolutely, there is no need to hear any further, and the Speaker may step forward and terminate the debate at that place. That is what “when satisfied” means. It does not mean, “I can presume in my mind what others are going to submit and that it is going to fail to reach the threshold necessary.” That is not what satisfied means. What satisfied means is that the Speaker has been satisfied that there is a prima facie case of privilege. That is what the debate is about. At that point, the Speaker can intervene and cut it off and say, “I need hear nothing more. We need not debate anymore. I am satisfied.”

I appreciate and recognize that the Speaker has every right, when he has concluded that an individual has entered into repetition and is not raising new points, having given the member enough opportunities to draw the member's points to a conclusion, to terminate those comments. That, however, is a very different question than allowing other members to make their comments. The challenge for the Speaker is that if the Speaker is doing that, notwithstanding that I believe what we see in House of Commons Procedure and Practice in the passage cited, is that when satisfied, you may terminate. That means when satisfied that there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Speaker, how can you possibly have such magical psychic powers as to be able to presume the future submissions of members who have not yet had an opportunity to stand on a question of privilege that directly and personally affects them? I do not believe that was your intention. I did not hear that as your intention, but I sense that some may have been wishing to guide you to such an intention. Having seen your conduct as Speaker before, I do not believe you would, and I just want to caution you from heading to such shoals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The intent is to gather enough information so that a decision can be made. I believe enough information has been given so that we can come to a conclusion. That is the intent of where we are going today.

I will let the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill continue, very briefly.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having the faith that I will bring some additional information to this. It is important, because I will address a couple of matters that I have not heard addressed today.

First, I will start by saying that it is not often that I get up in the House to make remarks. I do not consider myself to be a parliamentary orator like my friend from York—Simcoe. I do not consider that I know that thick green book anywhere near to that of my colleague from the London area. The reality is that I do not have a university degree. I did not even finish high school. However, I do have a degree in hard knocks. I was raised in Saskatchewan and have many of those Saskatchewan values, as does my family. Those values include things like working hard, respecting the law, and respect for institutions.

What I am getting at is that those are the values of my constituents, who entrusted themselves to me for the next four years when they elected me in October of 2015. It is my job to ensure, when I stand in the House, that I represent their views, but it is also important that I represent what this institution stands for.

Today we are debating a motion and an amendment to a motion, which were moved by two of my colleagues. The motion and the amendment to the motion were moved by two colleagues who sit immediately behind me. I happened to be here on budget day when my colleagues arrived, and I can say that they were hurt. They were hurt by the fact that they were not able to be here to represent their constituents in this particular vote.

What I have seen from the other side is that some of the points that have been made need to be challenged. I refer to the debate yesterday. I happen to have the privilege—and I say “privilege”, because that is what we are talking about here today—of sitting on the finance committee, in which I have the opportunity on occasion to listen to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I was not in the House when he spoke on this particular privilege motion, but I did happen to catch him on the television in my office. I am going to quote what the hon. member said. I will not quote his entire remarks, but I must say that some of the comments he made yesterday are pertinent to what we are talking about today.

As I said, I was here on budget day, when my two colleagues could not exercise their right to vote, and I can assure everyone that they were hurt by it. What did the member for Winnipeg Centre say? He stated, “We are not supposed to dilly-dally in our offices.” What kind of response to a privilege motion is that by the member for Winnipeg Centre? That shows an attitude. What Conservatives are saying here today, and have been saying for the last several days, and have been saying in other places, is that it is a prevailing attitude that we see day after day in this House.

He further stated in his remarks that he does not think this should even be referred to a committee. This is a gentleman who is an elected member of this House, a former member of the military, by his own admission in his remarks yesterday, and an elementary school teacher. He said that he did not think this should even be referred to a committee, that we have the bureaucracy to figure this out.

How can a member from that government stand in this House and say that our privileges, whether they have been violated or not, should be determined by a bureaucracy? That is absolutely absurd. The problem that many of us on this side have is that we see the actions of the government on a number of fronts, and, frankly, we do not trust it. We do not trust that the government is going to do the right thing. We do not trust that it is going to fix the problem we were talking about here today. For that reason, we need to ensure that there is a ruling that is fair. As the amendment said, it not only needs to go to a committee, but it needs to have the highest priority at that committee. That is what we are talking about here today. We have seen what the current government does in terms of priority. There is only one priority that comes from the government, and it is its own priority. It does not matter what the issue is, it is what they want to do, and they are going to get it done whether they have to roll over the opposition or not.

I know that there may be other members of this House who want to speak, but I have heard what you had said, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions, so I am prepared at this stage to move the following motion, seconded by my colleague from Banff—Airdrie. I move that the question of privilege regarding the free movement of members of Parliament within the parliamentary precinct, originally raised on March 22, 2017, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent to move that motion?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am moving a motion. I do not know whether I need unanimous consent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If not, it would be premature to be moving a motion at this point.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was referenced as seconding the motion, but it was my understanding that you stood a couple of times during my intervention and indicated that you felt you had all the information you needed. It sounded to me as though you were prepared to rule. Therefore, I think it would be in order for the member to move the motion to have it referred to the committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

To the hon. member, I said when we had enough information to come back with a ruling, then we could bring forward a motion. In the meantime, I believe we have collected enough information. I will be presenting it to the Speaker and will be coming back with a ruling in good time.

It being 1:44, the House now proceeds to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion.

Formaldehyde Emissions

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to take a personal moment. Today is my granddaughter Kwastanaya's birthday, and I am not there with her, so I would like to wish her a very happy birthday and let her know that even though I am not with her on her special day, her Ciciye loves her very much.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 102. The motion aims to adopt regulations on formaldehyde emissions and to model these regulations on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory standards.

While we have been made aware of the toxic effects of formaldehyde for decades, countless governments have failed to take action by ensuring that regulations are enforced. I believe that passing this motion and strengthening Canada's enforcement of formaldehyde emissions will not only serve to benefit Canadian industry but will protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Formaldehyde is a colourless gas emitted mainly from household products and building materials. It can be present in homes as a result of fumes from household products and building materials used in the home.

In Canada, the presence of formaldehyde in the air poses a particularly dangerous risk, as Canadians spend the majority of their time indoors, especially during the winter months. Although there is a formaldehyde emissions standard for composite and hardwood plywood panels, this is simply a guideline. Compliance is voluntary. It is not enforced by Health Canada, and this is putting Canadians at risk.

The health impacts of exposure to formaldehyde emissions are significant. Formaldehyde is an irritant, and concentrations of the gas can cause respiratory problems and burning sensations in the eyes and throat, and in instances of high exposure, can even cause cancer. Those with asthma and children are most likely to become sick after exposure to formaldehyde.

For these reasons, formaldehyde was declared to be toxic in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Despite this, formaldehyde can still be found in composite panels made of recycled wood. These panels have many uses, such as in the construction of furniture, shelving, cabinets, flooring, and even toys.

It is important to note that Health Canada has, in fact, established guidelines for indoor air quality, but the regulations on formaldehyde emissions fall short. As I previously mentioned, Health Canada specifies a formaldehyde emissions standard for wood composites. However, this is a voluntary standard, a favoured method of regulation in both Conservative and Liberal governments in the past. It is senseless to have standards for formaldehyde emissions unless they are made mandatory.

Voluntary guidelines have put Canadians at risk for far too long. We need a firm commitment from the government that the health and safety of Canadians will be its top priority. I believe that Canada needs to take its cue from our closest partner, the United States, and finally enforce strict regulations.

After Hurricane Katrina destroyed the homes of thousands of families in Louisiana, many people were temporarily housed in mobile homes and trailers. These temporary homes were constructed using composite wood, and numerous people living in these trailers became very ill from the formaldehyde content. This resulted in several lawsuits over many years as victims sought reparation for the damage done to their health.

In response to these events, the United States government introduced stringent regulations to eliminate formaldehyde from composite wood products in 2016. These products include everything from countertops and cabinets to flooring and plywood. In December of this year, these regulations will be fully implemented in the United States. Any foreign or domestic manufacturers that want to sell or produce wood composite products containing formaldehyde will have to comply with the new regulations in only a few months.

It is also important to note that California has adopted particularly strict measures, using a phase-out approach, to reduce public exposure to formaldehyde. These regulations require that any composite wood contained in flooring products be certified as having been manufactured using compliant wood products during production.

Of course, it is important to think about the impact strict regulations may have on Canadian businesses.

Currently 13 factories in six provinces produce composite panels. Many of these factories are in rural communities, like the one I represent, and these communities depend on the economic benefits they bring to the region. These factories employ 11,500 workers and have an impact of approximately $3.4 billion for the Canadian economy. In my riding in particular, the forestry and lumber industries are key to sustaining a strong local economy.

In February, we heard from members of the House that particle panel manufacturers in their ridings would directly benefit if this motion passed.

If Canada does not harmonize its regulatory standards with those in the U.S., there will likely be a number of consequences in relation to profits and competition. As a result, we have already seen Canadian companies adopting stricter standards. Many Canadian manufacturers have adjusted their practices to comply with the regulations introduced in the United States in order to keep exporting their products across the border.

Given that just over 70% of Canada's raw panels are exported to the U.S., many Canadian companies have already changed their production standards to meet American regulations. Canadian manufacturers would be at a significant disadvantage by not adhering to these strict rules, because it would allow them to remain competitive. I am confident these new regulations will be a great asset, not a hindrance, to our lumber producers and will only serve to strengthen our local economies.

Since the motion was first presented in the House, I have been pleased to see that many of us on both sides of the aisle will be supporting Motion No. 102.

The government has a mandatory duty under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to take action where significant health risks pose a threat to Canadians. Health officials are well aware of the dangerous risks associated with formaldehyde, and it is time for the government to take leadership and protect the lives and well-being of Canadians. Voluntary standards are not good enough. We need to pass this motion to ensure that regulations for formaldehyde emissions will be fully enforced.

We also need to ensure that our Canadian industries remain profitable and competitive with our American counterparts, and this motion will do just that. This is why I wholeheartedly support Motion No. 102, and strongly encourage all members to do the same.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to private member's Motion No. 102, which calls on the government to adopt regulations to limit formalydyde emissions from composite wood products intended for indoor use.

I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, for all his work on this file and for bringing this very important matter before the House.

In addition to calling on the government to take action to limit the emissions of formaldehyde in indoor air, the member's motion further asks that regulations be developed that aim to be similar to those recently published by our neighbours to the south in the United States.

Our government agrees.

Our government supports the motion before us today.

Adopting regulations in that regard would build on a number of efforts that have been made so far to limit exposure to formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen. Basically, it will help better protect Canadians’ health, and that is why we are here. The health implications of formaldehyde are well known, and have been for some time now.

The Government of Canada assessed it under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, CEPA , in 2001. Our scientists concluded that it was toxic to both human health and the environment and added it to CEPA's list of toxic substances, commonly known as schedule 1 of the act. Its toxicity is also recognized by a number of reputable sources worldwide. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as carcinogenic to humans.

Before going any further, perhaps we should answer this question. What is it? ·

Formaldehyde is a colourless substance that was commonly used as a raw material in many household consumer products and construction materials. Although the use of formaldehyde has diminished in Canada, the U.S., Europe, and Australia because of its hazardous nature, the main source of indoor exposure continues to be the release of gas from products containing formaldehyde.

This includes the composite wood products that the motion before us today is speaking to. Composite wood is used in many applications, including the manufacture of wood panels, such as particle board in countertops, decorative plywood for cabinets, laminate flooring, or finished products such as furniture. Composite wood products are created by binding wood particles together with resin or another kind of adhesive that often contains formaldehyde. It is the off-gassing of formaldehyde from these products that can contribute to increased levels of formaldehyde in indoor air.

As members of the House know, formaldehyde is also produced by the combustion of fuel and any other organic material. In light of that, formaldehyde emissions from motor vehicle engines and the possession of certain formaldehyde solutions have been regulated in Canada since 2003 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

With respect to concerns about indoor air quality, which is where our focus lies today, the government has continued to take action.

In 2006, following a comprehensive risk assessment to determine safe limits of formaldehyde, the government published indoor air quality guidelines that are unique in North America and much of the world. Meanwhile, in the United States, a series of initiatives related to setting regulatory emission limits for formaldehyde from composite wood products was also beginning to gain steam.

These efforts truly began to pay off in 2007 when California adopted regulations to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood.

In 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which required the United States Environmental Protection Agency, otherwise known as the EPA, to develop national regulations. These regulations were published on December 12, 2016, and set emission limits for composite wood, similar to those in effect in California.

As everyone likely knows, California is a very large market and companies that sell their products there also sell their products across the United States and North America.

In order to continue selling their products in California, the major Canadian producers made investments to comply with the California standards, and are already well positioned to sell to the rest of the United States when the EPA regulation comes into force this December.

These measures are clearly intended for an industry that believes it would benefit these companies to align with market requirements to sell these products in Canada and the United States.

That said, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I want to take a moment to highlight the contributions that Health Canada has made to this process in support of the mandate to protect the health of Canadians.

Between 2012 and 2015, the department carried out the testing of hundreds of different construction materials and products, so we could know which products were off-gassing formaldehyde into the homes of people. Armed with that information and data from our air quality monitoring, which indicated a need to drive down formaldehyde levels in indoor air, Health Canada then engaged the Canadian Standards Association to lead the development of a consensus-based standard that involved wide representation from industry. The standard, which is voluntary, specifies health-based emission limits for composite wood products. It was also developed to align with the regulations in the United States and California.

That said, it is important to determine whether the current voluntary approach will be enough once the EPA regulations come into force.

As a government, we have a responsibility to review the changing landscape, assess the possible impacts that this may have on the health of Canadians, and ask ourselves if a voluntary approach in Canada is sufficient to prevent these possibly harmful products from entering our country, and indeed our homes.

Despite actions taken to date, research confirms that formaldehyde continues to be found in the emissions from composite wood products available in the Canadian market, which includes imports from other countries and the indoor air in Canadian homes. Additionally, at times it continues to be found at levels which can adversely impact the health of Canadians, especially in newer homes.

As part of a series of indoor air quality studies, Health Canada measured the levels of formaldehyde in 500 homes between 2005 and 2015 in different cities in Canada. Every house had detectable levels of formaldehyde in its indoor air and roughly 8% of the homes exceeded Health Canada guidelines on residential indoor air quality for long-term exposure.

In other words, concentrations in excess of Health Canada guidelines may cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat and may worsen asthma symptoms in children. The risks to human health are real and it is time to take action.

By supporting the motion, our government is proud to indicate that we support examining taking further steps to protect Canadians, and especially our children, from the risks of formaldehyde exposure.

The timing of this motion is auspicious. I am pleased to inform the House that Health Canada officials have already initiated discussions with various stakeholders and, together with Environment and Climate Change Canada, have begun drafting regulations to address this issue.

As the government moves forward in the consideration of regulations, I want to assure the House that we will consult with Canadian stakeholders and any interested Canadians to develop a made-in-Canada solution that will protect Canadians from the health risks associated with formaldehyde, which is my priority, but will also protect Canadian companies and the market from products that do not meet our high North American standards.

In closing, I would like to reiterate our government's support for this motion. It is an important and concrete way to protect Canadians' health and to support the growth and success of Canadian businesses. I understand that officials are eager move this file forward together with stakeholders and ensure that everyone is heard.

Today I have outlined the reasons why our government supports the motion. I would like to thank the member once again for bringing forward the motion. I look forward to working with all members of the House as we take action on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products intended for indoor use.

Once again, and I believe it is worth repeating, I would specifically like to thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for bringing this extremely important issue to the House. He works very hard to protect the health of Canadians, especially children.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

×Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here on this Friday afternoon to tell my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia that we will support Motion No. 102, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) adopt regulations on formaldehyde emissions for composite wood products intended for indoor use that are sold, provided, or supplied for sale in Canada; and (b) ensure that these regulations are similar to US Environmental Protection Agency regulations enforcing the formaldehyde emissions standards in the US Toxic Substances Control Act Title VI in order to protect the health of Canadians who use these products.

“Formaldehyde” is not a word that you hear every day. Try saying it three times and it becomes a bit of a tongue-twister. Nevertheless, it is a very important word.

I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, not just because he sponsored this motion, but because he works very hard for his constituents. Upon discovering a flaw in the regulations, he did the right thing and took action in Canadians' best interest by moving this motion.

Anyone can be affected by these regulations on a daily basis, and yet we all agree that most Canadians did not wake up this morning thinking about formaldehyde and its health impacts. It is our job, as parliamentarians, to take action and ensure that Canadians’ quality of life is maintained and protected, and that is it always improving.

When you say the word “formaldehyde”, unless you are speaking with someone who loves science, your listener is likely to lose interest quickly. However, it is an important subject, and I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion.

Some people might be wondering whether Canada already has legislation to protect us from toxic substances. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is one of the most important environmental laws in Canada governing the assessment and management of chemical substances. It is also true that the purpose of the act is to protect the environment, as well as the health and well-being of Canadians. Under the heading “Chemicals” on the Government of Canada website dealing with the act, it reads:

A major part of the Act is to sustainably prevent pollution and address the potentially dangerous chemical substances to which we might be exposed.

This law also regulates the use of formaldehyde, so what is the problem? The problem is that our standards are not as strict as those published in December 2012 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which adopted the regulation of the California Air Resources Board on composite wood products in order to harmonize the regulatory framework for all 50 American states.

Some people believe that the Conservatives do not care about the environment and would go so far as to wonder why the opposition members are choosing to support Motion No. 102. People need to stop believing that we, the Conservatives, are the enemies of the environment. I would like to remind the House that we supported the signing of the Paris agreement in December 2016.

I would also like to remind the House of some of the things that the Conservatives accomplished under the Harper government that substantiate what I just said about our commitment to protecting the environment.

First, we created the clean air regulatory agenda. Then, we established new standards to reduce car and light truck emissions, as well as new standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.

We also proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Tier 3 standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline. We sought to limit hydrofluorocarbons—another word that is hard to pronounce—black carbon, and methane. We also established new rules to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Furthermore, we put in place measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies and alternative energy sources, and enhanced the government's annual report on main environmental indicators, including greenhouse gases.

That is just a brief overview of all the things that we did during the nine years that the Harper government was in power, before the Liberals took office.

I am proud to be the official opposition critic for the environment and climate change. I take this role very seriously. Today, I am pleased to give my support to Motion No. 102 sponsored by my colleague.

Our health, our quality of life and that of our children and grandchildren are important, and future generations have the right to a healthy environment. They also have the right not to have their future mortgaged by a huge deficit, but that is another story.

I am very proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and to have contributed to the unanimous report tabled on March 24 in which the committee calls for a rapid increase in the number of protected areas. There is a very important word here that bears repeating and stressing, and I would like all Liberal members to listen closely: unanimous.

When we tabled this report on the environment on March 24, we were unanimous. I hope that the Liberals will give us the chance to vote unanimously on changing the rules of the House. Again, that is another story.

What are the health-related risks of formaldehyde and why should we be concerned if the Canadian Environmental Protection Act already addresses them?

Let us start with the risks. According to Health Canada, formaldehyde is an irritant, and exposure to high concentrations of this substance can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat. Long-term exposure to moderate concentrations, at lower levels than those that cause irritation, can also cause respiratory symptoms and allergic reactions, especially in children.

Very high concentrations of formaldehyde can cause cancer of the nasal cavity. Therefore, we must ensure that legislation adequately regulates not just the use of formaldehyde in goods manufactured in Canada, but also its use in goods that we import.

Since I only have a few minutes remaining, I would simply like to highlight the importance of ensuring that our goods conform to U.S. standards and that we have solid legislation to prevent any product dumping made by other countries.

We know of countries that do not have the same standards and that are not as concerned about their citizens' quality of life. They allow the sale of goods containing formaldehyde, which has had negative repercussions for their youth. Therefore, we must protect ourselves.

In the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are 11 businesses directly affected by the export of such products. We want to export those products, but we do not want products from other countries to enter Canada and short-circuit the economic development of these businesses in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Nonetheless, there is an important part of the motion that needs to be changed. Instead of providing for regulations that are similar to those of the United States, we should be seeking to harmonize our regulations with theirs and I already explained why.

We need to ensure that our homes and the buildings where we work hard to earn a living have clean air. We live in the most beautiful country in the world, but it is a country where Canadians spend a great deal of time indoors, depending on the season. We cannot forget that.

Through targeted regulations and government action we can protect Canadians.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleagues from Louis-Hébert and Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier as well as my NDP colleague for their kind words.

I am fortunate to have this opportunity to close the debate in the House today on Motion No. 102, the purpose of which is to establish and adopt regulations on formaldehyde emissions for composite wood products intended for indoor use that are sold, provided, or supplied for sale in Canada.

These regulations should be similar to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations enforcing the formaldehyde emission standards in the Toxic Substances Control Act, Title VI, through a certification process to establish levels of formaldehyde in composite wood products sold or supplied for sale in Canada. As we now know, the U.S. regulations will go into force beginning December 12, 2017.

Formaldehyde is a colourless gas that is emitted into the air. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the health impacts of formaldehyde are well known, since Health Canada has been studying and documenting them for many years now.

High concentrations of formaldehyde can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; cause breathing problems; and worsen asthma symptoms in children and infants. They can even cause cancer. That is why this gas was declared toxic in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Formaldehyde is found in many construction materials made using composite panels, which are becoming increasingly common in the everyday lives of Canadians. Formaldehyde comes primarily from the resin that is used as an adhesive in the manufacture of composite wood panels and hardwood plywood.

As we know, Health Canada has developed general guidelines regarding indoor air quality in homes. Although there is a formaldehyde emission standard for composite wood panels and hardwood plywood, CAN/CSA-0160, it is a voluntary standard. As a result, it is not systematically enforced. Manufacturers are under no obligation to apply the standard as they would if they were required to by law or regulation.

As a result, the motion we are debating today is crucial and addresses unresolved problems that will only get worse when the American regulations take effect in December 2017. The motion seeks to protect the health of Canadians who buy or use these products. It also seeks to ensure that the composite wood panel manufacturing industry remains competitive and that Canadian consumers have access to the same quality products that American consumers do now.

Any American or foreign manufacturer of composite wood wishing to sell or supply their products to American consumers will have until December 12, 2017, to comply with the certification program and U.S. environmental requirements. Through these regulations, the United States has clearly indicated to manufacturers of composite panels that health of Americans comes first. Since the majority of Canadian manufacturers of composite panels have already made investments to modernize their operations in preparation for the coming into force of the new U.S. standards, they will be able to continue exporting their products to the United States and their operations will not be affected. However, some foreign manufacturers who have not made the necessary investments may try to liquidate their products in Canada, for example.

Having a Canadian certification process similar to that of the United States would protect our consumers and guarantee that the goods they buy have the highest possible quality standards.

In closing, I want to commend Canadian composite panel manufacturers for their leadership and for making the necessary investments to comply with the highest standards and limit Canadians' exposure to formaldehyde.

I am fortunate to have one of those companies in my riding. Uniboard employs about 200 people and actively contributes to our region's economic development.

On that note, I would like to thank my colleagues. Issues such as this provide us with an opportunity to work together to ensure Canadians' health and well-being.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?