Pauline Picard

[Toy Labelling, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Motion M-85 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed decision when buying products for their children.

People need to know what phthalates are. For the good of the public, I will point out that they are chemical agents containing concentrations of lead and cadmium. They are used in certain products made of polyvinyl chloride and vinyl, what we call PVCs.

These chemicals, the phthalates, have the property of making plastics softer, which is necessary for manufacturing such baby items as toys, pacifiers and teething rings. They are also used in manufacturing various plastic toys. Of all the chemicals used in plastics manufacturing, phthalates are the most common.

The problem with these chemicals is that they do not bind with the PVCs. They remain in a freely mobile phase and are leachable, which means that they are released in washing or percolation. Contact and pressure, whether by biting into the object or playing with it, can accelerate the leaching process of these items, for example, the pacifiers that babies put in their mouths.

As they soften plastics, they are ideal for all sorts of plastic covers, cellophane and children's toys such as teething rings and soothers, as I mentioned earlier. Given that children of a certain age tend to put everything in their mouth, the knowledge that a toy contains phthalates is not reassuring. Worse yet is the fact that phthalates are used in the manufacture of toys intended to go into children's mouths.

Prolonged exposure to phthalates can cause all sorts of problems. However the presence of a toxic substance in a toy is not the only problem. The greatest concern is that certain toxic substances, as I have said, may be released from the toys the children put in their mouth. These substances, including phthalates, are ingested and go directly into the system, causing irreversible harm to a child playing normally.

It has been shown that repeated exposure to phthalates can cause such health problems as liver and kidney damage, certain forms of cancer and may even cause infertility.

Since children are in constant development, they are particularly sensitive to exposure to phthalates, as are older people and those whose immune system is deficient.

In September, Greenpeace, the well-known environmental group, released a scientific study that identified large concentrations of toxic products in several commonly used objects easily accessible to children. Indeed, tests have shown that certain products contain phthalates in various proportions, anywhere from 10% to 40%, with no indication of that fact on the label.

Yet, as the authors of the study pointed out, phthalates bought for laboratory work are accompanied by warnings such as “harmful if inhaled, if in contact with water or if swallowed”, “possible risk of irreversible effects” and “may cause cancer”. However, once phthalates are incorporated into toys, even in proportions of up to 40%, there is no mention of or warning about these harmful products. This is quite a paradox.

Following these findings, Health Canada conducted a series of tests on 19 selected products, to see if certain chemical agents used to make toys could actually be absorbed by children and endanger their health. Strangely enough, although the findings showed significant levels of toxic substances in most of the products tested, including two containing liberal amounts which can be ingested by a child, Health Canada concluded that there were no serious risks associated with the presence of toxic substances and, therefore, that no special action was necessary.

Environmental groups like Greenpeace fiercely criticized Health Canada's attitude, accusing it of having conducted biased tests jeopardizing the health of children. Among other criticism, Health Canada is condemned for not having conducted heat and light exposure tests on the products, when several of them were designed to be used outdoors. The fact that, on the basis of a risk analysis on two products, it was concluded that, while they containing an excessive level of toxic chemicals, there was no need to take the toys off the market was also decried.

Canada is not the only country where there are concerns about dangerous substances contained in toys and their potential effects on health. In Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Argentina, several tests were conducted, as a result of which several products containing phtalates were take off the market. In Denmark and the Netherlands, they went as far as banning the use of phtalates in all plastic products, including toys.

So why Motion M-85? If a number of studies, including the one done by Health Canada, show that the presence of toxic products can represent a health hazard, if it is known that they can separate from the product and be ingested directly by a child, when we know that many other countries have also done similar research and arrived at similar conclusions, and when we know that many of these countries have already taken preventive action by withdrawing certain products or putting an outright ban on the use of phthalates in plastics, we might well wonder.

Finally, Health Canada has recognized the presence of chemical agents in vinyl products but, for the department, that did not represent a significant health hazard. Even so, why refuse to indicate this on these products? I think it is important that parents know what they are buying and that they be aware of the presence of chemical products that are potentially hazardous to the health of their children.

I think it is a question of protecting our children, of protecting consumers. In my view, when we have just come through the tainted blood scandal, I think it is always better to be safe than sorry.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of labelling as proposed in Motion M-85.

[Tainted Blood, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister give us the assurance that this potential compensation plan will apply not only to primary victims but also to secondary victims?

[Tainted Blood, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion urging the federal and provincial governments to consider establishing as soon as possible a compensation plan for the victims who received contaminated blood or blood products, including those infected with hepatitis C.

How will the Minister of Health respond to this urgent request?

[Krever Report, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Krever report has been tabled, we are left with the sad fate of thousands of people who were contaminated because of an inadequate system.

Since the federal government is the first to blame for the lack of rigour in the blood supply system, should it not now compensate the victims of its own negligence?

[Drummondville, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this House that the area of Drummondville, that I represent since 1993, is a huge economic success story.

Its industrial park contains 430 companies, including 26 new ones launched in 1996. For the last two years, investments have topped $100 million and they created almost 1,400 jobs per year. This is where the highest proportion of exporting companies in Quebec is. In 1996, the American magazine Site Selection ranked the two Drummondville industrial parks in the sixth place in the world for job growth.

The motivation of local business people has created a climate favourable to entrepreneurship. The local Société de développement économique, under the direction of Mayor Francine Ruest-Jutras, has been organizing for years Teams Drummondville to travel around the world.

Drummondville is viewed, and rightly so, as one of the engines of economic renewal in Quebec. Congratulations, Drummondville.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, another department, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has always had considerable influence on soil and water management in rural Quebec, for example through programs for land drainage, water course excavation, grain crop development and dairy and swine production. In the early 1990s, this department turned to sustainable development by focusing more on resource conservation, soil degradation and erosion, and reducing underground water and ground water pollution by pesticides, fertilizers, manure and effluent.

It can be clearly seen that, even in the absence of federal standards, Quebec and several Canadian provinces are not leaving this field uncontrolled, nor are the various independent bodies studying the various facets of the issue and advising governments, departments and municipalities on management techniques and improvements to be made to the regulations in place.

Finally, the Government of Canada has certain powers available to it for intervention in the environmental field, in agriculture, fisheries and the protection of navigable waters.

We are not fools, however. Since the government cannot intervene directly in water management, it is going through the Department of Health to get a foot in the door. It does this, of course, in the name of public health. This is the only way it can interfere once again in a field that does not belong to it. It would have been presumptuous to intervene directly given that the provinces would have reacted and criticized this additional meddling by the federal government.

Under section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1982, formerly section 108 of the British North America Act of 1867, ownership of lands and natural resources belongs to the provincial crown. The power of Quebec and all other Canadian provinces to establish legislation on water and other environmental matters derives from this right of ownership.

This is why the federal government's intervention in the area of drinking water through Bill C-14 comes to us from the Department of Health and not from Environment Canada. Even though health too is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has always felt free to intervene, program after program and national standard after national standard, in this area of jurisdiction clearly attributed in the Constitution to the provinces.

Last Tuesday, the Minister of Health accused us of being opposed to safe water and common health standards for all Canadians. That is totally wrong. We all want to be on the side of the angels. Who would not want our drinking water to be safe? No one, either in Canada or in Quebec, wants to eliminate basic public health criteria. The minister, the Prime Minister and everyone in the federal government are all fully aware of this.

What is sad is this impression, this feeling of superiority or lack of trust in the provinces, this notion that, if the federal government does not look after the problem, nobody will, this idea that there are some things that are too important or too complicated for mere provinces to deal with without screwing up.

This typical federal government attitude is what lies behind many of the rules, politely referred to as “national guidelines”, imposed on the provinces. The impression is given that, especially in Quebec, people are just waiting for certain guidelines to be dropped to dismantle the health system, when it is very well known that Quebec has always been a leader in the public health sector.

The recent examples of home care and drug plans, which were introduced by Quebec and which the federal government is now trying to imitate, are a clear indication that the provinces have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the administration of health care, any more than they do in other areas coming under their jurisdiction.

But if we are to believe the government, everything would be in a mess if there were no national guidelines. So it is taking no chances and Bill C-14 contains a reference to national guidelines.

Clause 5, under the National Drinking Water Directives , reads as follows:

5.(1) In order to encourage the provision of quality drinking water throughout Canada, the Minister may, after having consulted the provinces, establish national guidelines respecting a ) the concentrations of organisms, organic and inorganic substances and radionuclides, naturally occurring or otherwise, in drinking water; b ) the physical and chemical properties of drinking water; c ) the aesthetic characteristics of drinking water; d ) the methods for analysing drinking water; and e ) the collection, treatment, storage and distribution of water destined to be used by humans for drinking or for washing the body.

Merely reading this clause is enough to clearly see that the stated goal of simply regulating “materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption” is largely exceeded.

The concentrations of organisms, the physical and chemical properties of water, its aesthetic characteristics, the methods for analyzing drinking water: all this is far from the definition of “drinking water material” found in clause 2 and which reads as follows: a ) any device or article manufactured, sold or represented for use in modifying the composition, characteristics or properties of water destined to be used by humans for drinking— b ) reads: b ) any chemical or biological substance, or any organism, manufactured, sold or represented as a means—for modifying the composition, characteristics or properties of water destined to be used by humans for drinking or for washing the body—

I could go into more detail but, in short, the provisions deal with devices, chemical substances manufactured and sold to be added to water, replacement parts, etc. Nowhere does it say that Bill C-14 is intended to regulate the colour, odour or any other physical or chemical property of drinking water as stipulated in clause 5.

In addition, the Minister of Health was categorical in his response to questions from the Bloc Quebecois about the purpose and scope of Bill C-14. He said, and I quote: “What the bill does is regulate a matter entirely within federal jurisdiction; that is to say, standards for the manufacture, sale and use of mechanisms and equipment used in connection with the transporting of drinking water.”

Manufacture, sale and use of products used in connection with the transporting of water, but nothing about national guidelines respecting the colour, chemical composition and physical properties of water as stated in clause 5 of the bill. If that is not doublespeak, I wonder what is.

About the inspectors, and I agree with my colleague from the Reform Party on this, Bill C-14 also contains a clause on the enforcement of the bill's provisions. It provides for the appointment of inspectors, once again duplicating what already exists in the field.

Not only is this duplication, the powers conferred on inspectors are very broad. At clause 17.(1), the bill states:

If the conditions for obtaining a warrant under section 487 of the Criminal Code exist in respect of the commission of an offence under this act but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be feasible to obtain the warrant, an inspector who is accompanied by a peace officer may exercise the powers of search and seizure provided in that section without a warrant.

You will understand that, as the inspector would be accompanied by a peace officer, one can wonder why the inspector, and not the peace officer, should be the one authorized to exercise these powers without a warrant. Who will decide where and when to act? Who will determine that it is appropriate or necessary to obtain a warrant? Peace officers are trained to make this type of decision, and they do so under very strict and clear rules. As for Bill C-14, it is definitely not clear in this area.

When they talk about consultations, they seem to imply that an agreement has been reached. This is not an agreement, this is a consultation. In addition to the interference, the double talk and the lack of clarity surrounding Bill C-14, there is the government's casual attitude in saying: “We have consulted everyone, we have responded to the provinces' requests and we have the agreement of all the provinces to go forward with this bill.” As with jurisdictions and national standards, the facts are not as simple as the minister would have us believe.

In fact, there has been no political agreement between the federal government and the Government of Quebec on the management of drinking water.

On this point, the Minister of Health, for whom I have tremendous respect, went quite far in this House by quoting during question period a letter from Quebec's deputy minister of health dated May 1996 which, according to him, confirmed Quebec's approval of the bill at that time.

In fact, he read only one sentence, taking it completely out of context and going against the spirit of the letter. He quoted Quebec's deputy minister of health as saying: “As far as protecting public health is concerned, we therefore have no objections to this bill going forward—”

Yet, in that same letter, it was clearly stated that agreement for such a project, which involves provincial jurisdiction over natural resources, had to come not from the Department of Health but from the Department of the Environment and Wildlife, which is in fact responsible for the management of drinking water. But the Minister of Health was very careful not to read that part.

Why? Why make such a statement that support has been granted, by misquoting a letter he knew we would receive? In short, why trumpet that everyone, including Quebec, supported the bill when this is not the case at all?

But one thing that is certain is that Quebec did not give its agreement on this issue. There has never been any, nor will there be because, as has already been said, Quebec has become far more aware of the need to take control over everything concerning water, its transport, its processing, its use, in short every facet of that resource.

To summarize, drinking water falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and we are looking after it.

In conclusion, I would like to inform you that Bill C-14 is inappropriate and must not be passed. There is already too much duplication, too much encroachment, too much interference in areas where, most of the time, provinces already have their own legislation. Is there any need for another piece of legislation?

I would like to tell you that the bottom of the river is federal, but the water flowing in it is provincial. Fish are federal until they are out of the water, then they become provincial. Launches are federally registered, but constructed according to provincial standards, of course in keeping with federal safety regulations. The shores are provincial, but the ports are federal property.

With this bill, drinking water would be a provincial jurisdiction, whereas its physical and chemical properties, as well as the materials to carry it, would become a federal jurisdiction. There is something absurd in all of this.

Recently, in a Throne Speech, the government made a commitment to no longer interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction without provincial agreement. No one really believed this. Fortunately not, because once again the federal government is showing us what it means by good management and respect for jurisdictions as far as the environment is concerned. They want to harmonize the laws and regulations, but the words were barely out of their mouths before they intervened with legislation on environmental protection, the oceans, endangered species, and now Bill C-14 with all its implications.

It encroaches on three areas of provincial jurisdiction, namely health, natural resources and the environment. It dictates national standards on the quality of drinking water. It creates new duplication in drinking water quality control. It is not subject to provincial approval and was never approved by Quebec.

For all these reasons, each sufficient in itself, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support this bill in any way.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to table an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-14, An Act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption, because it does not because it does not take into account provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and health.”

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 deals with the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption.

This legislation is patterned on Bill C-76, which was introduced by the former health minister. Clause 3 states that its purpose is:

—to protect the health of Canadians by providing for the certification and regulation of drinking water materials; the making of national drinking water quality guidelines—

In recent years, we learned that we must be very vigilant whenever this government introduces a bill because, as the Reform Party member pointed out, certain provisions often go well beyond the stated intentions.

Upon reading Bill C-14, one quickly realizes that, while claiming to promote good will and public health, the government is taking direct aim at areas under provincial jurisdiction, and this is an affront the Bloc Quebecois cannot let go unchallenged.

Let me elaborate. Quebeckers feel, rightly so, that drinking water is a collective wealth, just like wheat in the prairies or oil in Alberta. It is a resource found in abundance in Quebec and, given the population growth and the increasing number of droughts, water will undoubtedly become a highly coveted resource in the 21st century.

In the past several months, a large number of experts, company and government agencies officials and elected officials have expressed their views regarding the privatization of water management, the development of groundwater and the export of water. This is not a coincidence, given the increasing importance of this natural resource because the world population is expected to reach 10 billion people during the 21st century.

Therefore, Quebec has a duty to do its best to preserve this resource for itself and also for other nations that might need it some day. It is therefore important to give the matter some thought so as to be able to make the right choices based on our values of fairness and solidarity.

It will therefore be easily understood that the people of Quebec want to see a serious, comprehensive policy for the management of this resource. Once again, however, with Bill C-14, the federal government is trying to get a foot in the door and increase its control, let us be frank, to cover everything to do with water.

Where is this bill coming from and why is the government suddenly getting involved in the management of drinking water? For though the minister firmly denies it, this is indeed what is happening. Despite vigorous protests to the contrary, the government actually wants to regulate everything to do with water—water collection, distribution, supply, and treatment systems—in order to take in, as stated in clause 2 of the bill:

(d) any thing or class of things prescribed by the regulations to be a drinking water material;

As a brief background, until the late 1980s, it was common for the provinces and territories to take advantage of the program allowing them to consult the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This program helped in determining what treatment additives or system components should be used in drinking water supply systems.

When the EPA announced in June 1988 that it was closing down its consultation program, some provinces sought assistance from Health Canada. They suggested to Health Canada that it fill the void by regulating treatment additives and drinking water system components. It need hardly be pointed out that this call for federal intervention did not come from Quebec.

Since then, the federal government has been looking for a way to regulate several aspects of drinking water management. The strange thing is that it did not ask itself why the Americans had abandoned national regulations. Was general neglect the option chosen? Of course not.

In fact, many states now take it upon themselves to oversee the safety of water materials, according to their own standards. This is an example of decentralization that this government should consider more closely.

But on the federal side, they are constantly looking for ways to fill this regulatory gap which may threaten the quality of drinking water. But what about this gap? How wide is it?

On the Quebec side, we have our own provincial regulations. There are five departments with a key role in the management of drinking water. The Quebec department of the environment and wildlife has considerable powers in deciding the fate of water related projects. That department must approve any project dealing with the construction of water systems, water intakes, feeding systems for water treatment, sewage systems and facilities for treating waste water, and it has had these responsibilities since at least 1978.

In addition, under the Environment Quality Act, that department has the authority to deliver operating licences for water delivery and sewage systems, to monitor water quality and waste water management, and to oversee the disposal of riverbeds and sea floors and their shorelines. That department is also responsible for the construction and maintenance of storage reservoirs for water from lakes, ponds, rivers and waterways.

The Department of Natural Resources has responsibilities throughout Quebec that have a profound and lasting impact on water management. It is responsible for water resources and for Hydro-Quebec, for the management and use of public lands and for the mining industry. It also assumes provincial responsibilities related to mapping, surveying, land registers, geology and remote sensing.

The Department of Municipal Affairs also has a key role in municipal decisions on the construction and management of water facilities. Under the municipal code, municipalities can amend or repeal regulations to allow any company or individual to build or manage water facilities. Furthermore, the municipal code provides that all regulations must be subject to the approval of those entitled to vote and of the government.

Municipalities have tangible and critical responsibilities in the area of water management. They must ensure that individuals and businesses can drink this water. Cities own and manage most water systems. They are responsible for the production and distribution of drinking water, and for the collection and treatment of waste water.

[Drinking Water, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, is Canada truly the “best country in the world to live in”?

Two weeks ago, the Minister of Health told us that drinking water comes under provincial jurisdiction, while the equipment used to transport it is the federal government's responsibility.

Nothing surprises us any longer, since we already know that in Quebec the bottom of the St. Lawrence River comes under federal jurisdiction, while the water itself is the responsibility of the province. Fish is a federal responsibility but, once out of the water, it becomes a provincial one. Fishers' boats are registered under federal laws, but their construction is subject to provincial standards and, of course, federal safety regulations. The shores of the St. Lawrence come under provincial jurisdiction, but ports belong to the federal government.

And now the health minister is proud to add to the “best mess in the world to live in” with Bill C-14.

Sovereignty cannot be achieved too soon. We have to get out of this mess.

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether she finds it acceptable for the federal government to be striking a special committee to examine questions of agreements on custody, visiting rights and parenting after parental separation or divorce, when separation is known to be a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no right to meddle in this area of provincial jurisdiction?

[Drinking Water, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health not once again trying to pull a fast one, as in the case of raw milk cheese, by suddenly and clumsily getting involved in an area where no one in Quebec thinks he has any business, using public health as an excuse?