Karen Kraft Sloan

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago a concerned citizen came to my office in the riding of York North. He was very concerned about the health of the trumpeter swan in the Wye Marsh. He was very concerned about what was happening around lead contamination. I understand the member for Simcoe—Grey has some of the Wye Marsh within his riding. I was wondering what he was doing to help his constituents on this very important problem.

[Petitions, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have 2,096 signatures which call upon parliament to enact an amendment to the Criminal Code to enable victims of crime to lay criminal charges in Canada when a serious criminal offence takes place outside of Canada and when both the parties have Canadian status.

[Division No. 531, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my vote as negative on concurrence.

[Division No. 529, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to vote no to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 231, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Division No. 504, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in the negative.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health on the recent announcement of the first phase of research projects under the Government of Canada's $40 million toxic substance research initiative. The TSRI is a joint Environment Canada and Health Canada initiative to fund scientific research into the links between toxic substances, human illness and environmental damage.

Building science capacity within federal departments is an important first step in improving the government's ability to make effective decisions to address urgent environmental and health issues. Without an adequate science capacity it becomes increasingly difficult to detect, understand and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances on Canadians and their environment.

Protecting and strengthening science capacity is fundamental to making good environmental and health decisions as science itself evolves and changes. New information and research continually informs and improves our understanding of how ecosystems operate, of how toxic substances interact and impair health functioning of ecosystems and what is required for remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of these ecosystems.

However, lack of full scientific certainty must not immobilize us. It must not impair our ability to act. The precautionary principle means that we act in a cautionary way to ensure the protection of the environment and human health where threats of serious or irreversible harm exists.

Having 23,000 chemicals in use in Canada without proper evaluation is hardly cautionary. The member for Davenport has pointed out why we need a strong precautionary principle. This has been a longstanding public policy issue.

As early as 1950 Rachel Carson outlined in her book Silent Spring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had declared that it was extremely likely that the potential hazard of DDT had been underestimated. By 1951 residues had been recovered from human milk samples tested by Food and Drug Administration scientists. This meant that breast-feeding human infants received a small but regular addition to the load of toxic chemicals building up in their bodies.

She went on to write that at that time it was believed that chemicals of that type freely crossed the barrier of the placenta. 1951 was also the year that my mother became pregnant and I was born in the spring of 1952. It took until 1978, the year that my daughter was born, before DDT was banned in Canada, six years after it was banned in the U.S. An entire generation had to pass from the time that evidence of harm existed before real action was taken. This is hardly a precautionary approach. And today, 21 years after being banned in Canada, DDT is still present in our environment and in our body tissues.

Thousands of tonnes are produced each year. It is used to stop the spread of malaria in some parts of the world. This is only one chemical story among thousands of others.

The post World War II baby boom generation has been exposed to more pesticide residues in childhood diets than any other generation before or since. However, the most significant results of this exposure will not be seen in the baby boom generation but in the next generation with our children and perhaps in many generations to follow.

Many health and environmental witnesses, for example the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada and the World Wildlife Fund, pointed out to the committee that children are particularly vulnerable.

From before conception chemicals work to harm a fetus as fathers are subjected to toxics that can damage sperm. The fetus lives, grows and develops inside mothers who have been exposed to chemicals that can impair key body systems and functions. Even the purest food, breast milk, contains residues of harmful substances.

The sad irony is that the most pristine places on the planet are not immune. Women in the far north, people not responsible for the creation or use of these contaminants, have higher levels for example of PCBs in their breast milk than mothers in the south.

As the president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Sheila Watt-Clouthier said last summer at the international POPs negotiating meeting in Montreal, “As we put our babies to our breasts, we feed them a noxious chemical cocktail that foreshadows neurological disorders, cancer, kidney failure, reproductive dysfunction. This should be a wake-up call to the world”.

Children interact with the environment in very different ways from adults. They eat dirt. Considering that we grow our food in dirt, this is not such a bad thing except when that dirt comes from a lawn recently sprayed by pesticides. Relative to their size and body weight, children breathe, eat and drink far more than adults. They breathe two times more air, eat three to four times more food and drink two and a half times more water. Their pathways of exposure to environmental pollutants are different from adults and the same level of chemicals in the environment can have much more dramatic effects on a growing child.

The incidence of some cancers may be affected by lifestyle allowing adults to reduce their risks by changing their lifestyle. However, as Sandra Steingraber points out in Living Downstream , “the lifestyle of toddlers has not changed much over the past half century. Young children do not smoke, drink alcohol, or hold stressful jobs”. Moreover, for the vast majority of cancers we cannot point to a cause in children or adults, but evidence is suggesting that increasing cancer rates are correlated with the tremendous rise in our use of chemicals.

We know these problems exist. They have been documented for decades. Few would argue that the environment and human health are top priorities for Canadians. In fact, Canadians view environment as the number one determinant of health. We must set environmental priorities as if children mattered. More than ever our children and their children require us to act in a cautionary manner and if we are to err, we should err on the side of protecting their health.

If this bill is really about pollution prevention and health protection, then we as parliamentarians must act in a precautionary manner. The addition of cost effective to this section of the bill would add an unnecessary barrier to act when a serious or irreversible threat exists.

I urge members of the House to defeat this amendment.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I rose in the House to address the first group of amendments at report stage of Bill C-32. At that time I said that not only were we dealing with a set of amendments but we were dealing with a fundamental decision on the direction which we as parliamentarians will take the country with regard to environmental health and protection.

As parliamentarians we are entrusted to make decisions that affect the health and well-being of Canadians. We as parliamentarians must protect the health and well-being of Canadians.

I emphasize to the House that Bill C-32 is an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. The primary function of the bill is to use pollution prevention measures to protect the environment and human health. This is seen as a way of contributing to sustainable development and should not be confused as a sustainable development bill.

Pollution prevention is a stated policy of the government. There were a few small changes made in committee to encourage the practice of pollution prevention approaches. However, certain amendments before the House would result in shifting the bill away from a pollution prevention approach, for example the amendments that would add cost effective to the definition of precautionary principle.

The bill currently reads in the administrative duties section that the Government of Canada shall exercise its powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health and shall apply the precautionary principle that in threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation and promote and reinforce enforceable pollution prevention approaches.

The new amendment would change this section to include cost effective measures to prevent pollution. This weakens the bill in encouraging effective pollution prevention. It provides more hurdles to be overcome in order to move on measures to protect the environment and human health, and it is redundant.

The federal regulatory process management standards compliance guidelines clearly demand that regulatory protection occurs at low cost to both the private sector and the government. The regulatory development process each department undergoes must include a cost benefit analysis to demonstrate that regulatory benefits are greater than their cost.

A business impact test or equivalent analysis must be undertaken to assess the effect of the regulatory proposal on Canadian business. This amendment is redundant and it is unnecessary for cost effective to be inserted into the definition of the precautionary principle.

Even though business and industry have the assurance of a cost benefit analysis and the business impact test through the regulatory process guidelines of treasury board, certain individual lobbyists have mounted an unprecedented assault against the bill. As my hon. colleague has already mentioned, a number of very worthy and innovative companies in Canada and across the globe are doing very well with progressive environmental management systems.

One of the most important arguments industrial lobbyists seem to be putting forward is that this is an internationally accepted version of the precautionary principle and that it should include cost effectiveness. This is not true. There is no right or wrong definition of the precautionary principle. In fact there is no definition at all. Instead there are many articulations of the principle. Because it is an evolving concept it is an approach and therefore not static or rigid.

It should also be said that sovereign governments should be free to articulate the precautionary principle as strongly as they like. The precautionary principle emerged in Germany and was translated as a precaution or foresight principle. It was enunciated as early as 1976 by the federal Government of Germany.

Environmental policy is not fully accomplished by warding off imminent hazards and the elimination of the damage that has occurred. Precautionary environmental policy requires that natural resources are protected and that demands on them are made with care.

In 1991 the parties to the London dumping convention, and Canada was one of them, produced a resolution entitled “The Application of a Precautionary Approach”. Environmental protection was within the framework of the London dumping convention. It read that the London dumping convention shall:

—be guided by a precautionary approach to environmental protection whereby appropriate preventive measures are taken when there is reason to believe that substances or energy introduced in the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects.

There are many examples that the federal government has undertaken that act in a precautionary way which does not have to include cost effectiveness. I inform the House that the Nova Scotia environment act is the first statute in Canada to expressly adopt the precautionary principle. Section 2(b)(ii) states:

The precautionary principle will be used in decision making so that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

I note that Nova Scotia does not include cost effective in its definition.

Most appalling was that I was told by a group of industrial lobbyists that given the amount of change made in committee the focus of the bill had become unacceptable to them because the bill called upon the government to protect the environment and human health.

I thought my ears had betrayed me, but, as my hon. and distinguished colleague just pointed out, the National Post ran an article in which it said that industry's biggest complaint centred on language within the proposed legislation that set out an explicit government obligation to protect the environment and human health. Earlier versions of the bill called on the government to endeavour to protect the environment.

These people do not speak for business in Canada. They speak for a small minority of Canadians. They certainly do not speak for the public interest. We are not dealing with merely a set of amendments before the House but rather a fundamental direction of how we will manage environmental toxins and how we will protect the health of Canadians.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked on this legislation since 1994 and it has been a long five years. I can attest to that.

We have before the House not just a set of amendments but a fundamental decision on the direction in which we will take the country with regard to environmental and health protection.

In this place we are the elected representatives of a free and a democratic nation. This is a privilege and a responsibility which we must take very seriously.

We have a huge responsibility to honour, respect and protect those things that Canadians cherish the most. The preservation of the natural environment and the protection of human health are two such things that Canadians feel very deeply about.

A dear friend of mine has said that the issue of the environment will be the defining issue of the 21st century. I say to my hon. colleagues in this place that over the course of this debate and the ensuing vote on the amendments to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, what we say and how we vote will define us.

I want to address one of the issues that an hon. member has already raised and that is the amendment to make changes to section 77(3), which deals with the removal of inherent toxicity. The government response in 1996 agreed with the standing committee that virtual elimination can be proposed for substances that are inherently toxic. Bill C-74 in 1996 also agreed with that. When the current bill, Bill C-32, came before the committee it also agreed with this point.

I made a lot of arguments on the issue of including inherent toxicity within the CEPA toxic definition. I was told that that was unacceptable and it could be handled in other ways, for example, in section 77(3). Therefore, I am very concerned that inherent toxicity has been taken out of this section. In the words that have already been uttered in this place by someone who has worked as a consultant and an environmental lawyer on this very legislation, this proposed amendment is very significant and would gut the bill of the significant direction taken in this clause toward inherent toxicity.

Two other issues that I would like to address deal with Motions Nos. 1 and 2, the phase-out of generation and use, and the motions dealing with virtual elimination.

The original definition of virtual elimination, as worded in Bill C-32, was seen to be too convoluted, conflicting and confusing to be effectively implemented. Under the advice of the Deputy Minister of Environment Canada, the government moved to amend the wording of virtual elimination in Bill C-32. This change adopts word for word the definition used in the 1995 toxic substance management policy, a policy adopted by the government in a multi-stakeholder process.

I would like to underscore for the House that it has been acceptable to industry for the past four years, yet in recent weeks and months industry lobbyists have mounted an assault on this provision.

The new amendment to Bill C-32 , if accepted, would diverge from the toxic substance management policy. Virtual elimination, as defined in the bill, will not shut down plants as asserted by industry. If this policy has been in effect for the past four years, why is investment not flooding out of this country? It is not.

I would also like to remind colleagues that while we are making decisions on a national piece of legislation, the effect of our decisions on virtual elimination will affect an international process that we are currently undergoing around the issue of persistent organic pollutants.

The title of this bill is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. This is not a sustainable development bill as asserted by the Reform Party. Get it straight, guys. This is a bill about the protection of the environment and human health. It only contributes to sustainable development. It is not a sustainable development bill.

The motion that deletes “generation and use” from the preamble will make it difficult to prevent pollution. By focusing only on the reduction of the release of pollution, it will make it difficult to work toward preventing pollution. Disasters such as Bhopal and other minor but more frequent incidents such as accidental discharges and spills result from the misguided notion of relying on containment only.

Various international toxic initiatives which have been taken, for example, by the UN, the OECD and the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation, recognize that this is folly. They are moving toward use reduction and not just focusing on release.

Pollution prevention is a stated policy of the government. The bill, as it is before the House, with the inclusion of the reduction of generation and use, would better ensure pollution prevention. Its approaches, as I have mentioned, are closer to what is happening in the U.S. and Europe. If we allow this amendment to go through simply focusing on release will not be good enough.

I would ask hon. colleagues to consider how they want to define themselves and what it is that they want to stand for. If we want a bill that actually works toward the protection of the health of Canadians and the environment of Canadians we have to defeat the amendments that weaken this bill.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the House should applaud the vision and foresight of the hon. member for Davenport.

Last night he introduced the endangered species protection act which calls for the protection of all endangered species and their habitat in Canada. The bill calls for science based identification of species at risk and would make listing automatic. Recovery plans would be required and it would be an offence to harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat.

Overwhelmingly Canadians want strong endangered species legislation. In the words of the hon. member for Davenport, “this is benchmark legislation for the government to emulate”.

[Health, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the European Union has introduced labelling requirements for genetically modified foods. Polls show that Canadians want genetically engineered foods to be separated and labelled.

These foods are increasingly a part of our diet. They are identical in appearance to unmodified foods but may pose unknown risks from allergens and environmental threats.

Canadians have the right to know if the foods they buy and eat have been genetically altered. They have the right to choose for themselves.