Elinor Caplan

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion about the rationale used by Canada's government in deciding on a collaborative approach to hepatitis C compensation.

Since the Krever commission delivered its report, the federal government has been working very hard to find a solution to this difficult problem. When Justice Krever presented governments with the facts it became clear that many of the hepatitis C infections between 1986 and 1990 might not have happened if things had been done differently.

The beginning of 1986 was when surrogate testing was first used on a national scale in the United States. To ignore that benchmark date would lead us to an unsustainable rationale for offering assistance. Even after 1986 the science of hepatitis C was still unsettled and indeed it is still evolving.

Those who claim governments should ignore such benchmark dates altogether are perhaps arguing for some sort of retroactive scheme which would eventually apply to all health care harms suffered by Canadians.

Allowing that to happen without due discussion and consideration of the consequences—

[National Volunteer Week, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, volunteers open doors to a better world. That is the motto for this year's National Volunteer Week.

With the goal of improving our communities and quality of life, thousands of volunteers and organizations devote their time and energy to many different worthwhile causes. Whether in times of crisis or in day to day life, volunteers from all over Canada are willing and available to help each other and strengthen our communities.

This week is a chance to celebrate, congratulate and encourage others to participate and enjoy the benefits derived from volunteerism. As I told volunteers last night from the York Region Children's Aid Society, volunteers can make a difference. They can make a difference for themselves, their children, their community and their country.

Get involved and make a difference. Be a volunteer.

[Ontario Conservatives, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it must be April Fool's Day. Today in the Toronto Star I read that Mike Harris is telling members of his own Tory caucus to sign a candidate's agreement for the next election.

Conservative members of the Ontario legislature are being told they must sign or they cannot be a candidate for the next provincial election.

If they do not affirm statements on family values, ethical and accountable government and a commitment to not run if they lose a nomination battle, the members of caucus will disqualify themselves. Mike Harris and his cabinet must be paranoid.

I know the Tories do not trust the people of Ontario. I know they do not trust the unions. I know they do not trust the teachers and I know they do not trust the public service, but not to trust their own members is unbelievable.

Mike Harris is now trying to keep his caucus in line by using the same draconian, top down, heavy-handed measures that he used against the people of Ontario.

The members of the Ontario Tory caucus and the people of Ontario will not be fooled. They know—

[Canada Foundation For Innovation, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

A number constituents, researchers and professors have contacted me regarding research in Canada. The Canada Foundation for Innovation was announced as a huge boost to research in Canada. We have heard little since that announcement.

Can the minister tell this House the status of that foundation and this government's support for research in Canada?

[Liberal Party Of Canada, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the national Liberal caucus has established the national Liberal caucus twinning program, matching members of our caucus with Liberal riding associations across Canada.

I have the honour of being twinned with West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. Mr. Hans Krause and the other members of the West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast Federal Liberal Riding Association have greeted me with open arms and Liberal hospitality as their representative in Ottawa.

In April, while the Standing Committee on Health is in Vancouver, I will be taking the opportunity to visit my surrogate riding. West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is a magnificent area of our country with diverse areas such as Whistler, Squamish, Powell River and West Vancouver.

I am excited about the opportunity to visit this beautiful part of our country and especially to meet with fellow Liberals to discuss how we could continue to build this great country together.

[Precision Skating, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate black ice double gold medalists at the precision skating national championship on March 8.

Precision skating, one of the newest and fastest growing disciplines of figure skating, consists of a team of skaters performing various footwork formations in unison.

Last week the senior team successfully defended its title on the way to the second consecutive Canadian championship. The junior team, in its first year in competition, also took first place honours.

In April the 27 member senior team is off to Bordeaux, France, to defend its title at the World Challenge Cup.

Now entering its sixth season, Black Ice continues to work toward its goal of representing Canada at the 2002 olympic games where precision skating will be included for the first time.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Black Ice and wishing the senior team the very best of luck as it heads to France for the World Challenge Cup next month.

[Toy Labelling, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and participate in the debate on Motion No. 85.

When I first reviewed this motion I could not pronounce the word phthalates and I think most Canadians on seeing the word might have the same difficulty. I undertook not only to learn the correct pronunciation but also to try to understand what was being proposed and why it was being proposed.

I want to thank the people at Health Canada for sharing with me the evidence, information and work they have undertaken.

Health Canada has the responsibility for ensuring the safety of products. I am convinced the department will take appropriate action as required to safeguard our children. I say that not just as a member of the House of Commons but as a grandmother. I have three grandchildren under the age of three and a half who also put things in their mouths. If they are putting things that are hazardous to their health in their mouths then I do not believe a label is adequate protection. That is why I have some concerns about the private member's motion before us today.

Health Canada has been concerned about phthalates since the 1980s. Last fall the environmental organization Greenpeace released a report on a group of chemicals. These are polyvinylchlorides or PVC plastics. PVC and plastics are contained not only in toys but in many things found in our everyday lives, from the seats in our cars to coverings on notebooks. The Greenpeace report actually set off the latest round in what is a longstanding debate on the potential hazards of PVCs in children's toys and elsewhere.

Today I would like to review the Greenpeace claim and inform the House of Health Canada's activities in response to this concern. I have been listening very carefully to the debate and I believe that every member of this House shares the concern about the safety of our children and our grandchildren. We also want to know if substances which we come in contact with in our daily lives have hazards that we should be aware of.

The history of phthalates is very important. According to the Greenpeace study eight of the 63 toys it tested were purchased in Canada. The report claimed that four of the six toys contained phthalate concentrations ranging from 20% to 39%.

Health Canada obtained a copy of the Greenpeace report and departmental officials have studied its findings. It is extremely important to note that the assessment was done in co-operation with international experts in this area. It is not just Canada and the United States but the world is interested in products which may have harmful contaminants.

Officials at Health Canada conducted a field survey and found that 63 toys mentioned in the Greenpeace report were available in Canada. All 63 toys were made in the United States and 38 of the toys are available in Canada.

Health Canada's health protection branch conducted its own tests on three of the four products that Greenpeace had identified as having significant concentrations of phthalates. The tests revealed a similar concentration of phthalates as the tests done by Greenpeace with levels ranging from 3.9% to 26%.

It should be noted that the phthalate identified in both studies is the one known as DINP. This chemical was introduced by toy manufacturers in the United States six years ago to replace another phthalate, DEHP. Why is the difference important? DEHP was thought to be potentially harmful and hazardous to children and was voluntarily taken from the marketplace and replaced with DINP.

Following its usual precautionary approach to potential health hazards, Health Canada expanded its testing and assessment of PVC plastic toys to an additional 30 products that were not on the Greenpeace list. With the exception of an unknown phthalate found in one sample, the only phthalate detected was DINP. Eight additional samples were then bought and tested. Only DINP was detected with very small amounts of DEHP.

These results support my view that private member's Motion No. 85 is premature. I believe it is premature because the scientific evidence is not in and available. I also believe that if the evidence showed that the phthalate DINP is a hazard to children, then labelling would be inadequate. Therefore, I do not believe we should proceed with this motion. It is my understanding that the research will be concluded this spring. The evidence will be there and will be evaluated.

I am convinced that Health Canada will remain vigilant in its quest to ensure that potential health risks which are posed by PVC plastic toys and others will be brought to the attention of all Canadians in an appropriate manner. If it is a health hazard it will be banned and not simply labelled.

The department is continuing to monitor the situation. It is testing plastic toys. As the minister has indicated, Health Canada and this government will take whatever action is necessary to protect the health of Canada's children.

It is important for us to have these debates in the House. One of the concerns I have is that we not unduly alarm people about potential hazards when there is no evidence to support those findings. I await the results of scientific evidence. I would urge all members of this House to make sure they get the facts straight when we are having this debate.

Should the investigations indicate that these additives in vinyl products pose or are likely to pose a risk to young children, I believe the department will not and should not hesitate to take necessary corrective measures. However, it would be irresponsible for us to act without the evidence to suggest that our children are in danger.

[Hate Crimes, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the police reported that hate crimes have increased by 7% in the Toronto area since 1996. I understand the police believe the actual number is greater than that.

My question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. What is the federal government doing to address this disturbing trend and curb the increases in rising hate crimes?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. I listened very carefully to my Conservative colleague speak about the differences between the Conservative policy and Liberal policy. I would remind him and all Canadians that it was the Conservative government's policy that left a $42 billion deficit which this government had to deal with. I would also remind him of policies of Conservative governments across the country.

I happened to see Mr. Eves on the news this morning whining about this budget. I remind all Canadians, particularly those in Ontario who listened to Mr. Eves, that the provinces make choices. While the federal government listened to the national forum on health and raised the transfer from $11 billion to $12.5 billion for health and education in the Canadian health and social transfer, Ontario chose a personal income tax cut which will reduce provincial revenues by $4.8 billion when fully implemented.

When we compare that to the transfer payment reduction of $850 million for 1998-99, it means in Ontario after Conservative policies Ontario's revenue reduction because of tax cuts is five times more than what it is blaming the federal government for. If Ontario were really interested in maintaining health care and education, it would look at its policies and understand how misguided, unbalanced and detrimental they are. When I listen to this member compare that, I think—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member opposite I say merci beaucoup.

I think women are big winners in the budget and I will tell the House why. Of the 400,000 people who will no longer be paying income tax, many of them will be women. One of the things we know, unfortunately, is that too often in Canada the face of poverty is women and their children.

Women will now be able to have an increase in their child care deduction from $5,000 to $7,000. Women will also be able to participate in student loan programs which are now extended to part time students, many of whom are women. When it comes to the Canada pension plan, young women in the future, or in fact all youth in Canada, can now be assured that the plan will be there for them.

The changes to the seniors benefits will be discussed in the legislation of the House, but I can assure the member that the guiding principle of the government when it comes to any changes is to ensure that the impact is understood and that we try to be as fair as we can be. We understand the special needs that women often have in our society, particularly those who are raising children alone.