Mark Warawa

[Adjournment Proceedings, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon. member was not listening to what I said.

This government is going to act with a clean air made in Canada environmental plan. We have a very clear objective and that is to provide cleaner air for the health of Canadians and to reduce greenhouse gases. We will put forward a realistic, achievable and affordable plan.

Canadians waited for 13 years while the previous Liberal government did almost nothing to clean up the environment. It took only four months for Canada's new government to get every single province and territory to the table and agree with the importance of moving forward with a biofuel strategy.

This government is not afraid to set targets. When we set targets, we meet them. When we make promises, we keep them. This government is committed to action for a clean environment because that is what Canadians want.

[Adjournment Proceedings, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member is not aware of the extent of discussions this government is having with the provinces and territories on initiatives that address clean air, clean water, clean land and climate change. In fact, in the last few days the Minister of the Environment has called all of the provincial environmental ministers, including Mr. Béchard in the province of Quebec.

On the specific issue of the Government of Quebec, there have been discussions between the federal government and Quebec on a variety of issues, including climate change. The Minister of the Environment met her Quebec counterpart, Mr. Béchard, several months ago and climate change was the primary topic of discussion. Her office is in regular contact with Mr. Béchard's office. The new deputy minister of the environment met his provincial counterpart on May 29, less than one week after he was appointed, and discussions occur on a regular basis.

We were pleased when the Government of Quebec tabled its climate change plan a few months ago. This gives us a clear idea where the province sees opportunities for emissions reductions and provides us at the federal level with clearly identified areas where we are able to collaborate with it. There are already ways in which we are well aligned with Quebec in our priorities. We look forward to working together for the betterment of Canada's environment and the health of all Canadians.

Several announcements in the current budget will help Quebec in its efforts. These include a tax credit for transit passes, the largest investment in clean public transportation infrastructure in Canada's history, and a commitment to implement an average 5% renewable fuel content by 2010. We are not only talking to Quebec. We are in discussions with all provinces, territories and key stakeholders regarding opportunities for investment in transit infrastructure and the commitment to renewable content in fuels. These are all tangible measures.

Concrete measures which have real results will provide cleaner air for all Canadians and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions too. This is just the start. We will continue to build on these measures and create an environmental agenda focused on ensuring that future generations enjoy clean air, clean water, clean land and clean energy here in Canada, a plan which will reduce air contaminants and greenhouse gases and will improve the health of Canadians.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 20th, 2006]

That's nonsense. It has already been banned.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-307 by the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley, which is an act to prohibit the use of three types of phthalates, BBP, DBP and DEHP. I thank him for his work on this.

The Government of Canada is very concerned about the potential risks to human health, especially to children, from chemical substances used in manufacturing and which may be found in products that we use every day. For that reason we committed in the Speech from the Throne to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution. In the speech the Governor General of Canada stated:

Recognizing the important role of parliamentarians, members of Parliament will be asked to conduct comprehensive reviews of key federal legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I am on the committee that is reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA 1999. We are committed to working within that process. We are also committed to ensuring that CEPA 1999 is improved in order to increase its effectiveness in reducing the use and release of harmful substances.

This government has concerns about Bill C-307 because the departments of environment and health have already been actively engaged in scientifically assessing the environmental and human health risks of specific substances named in Bill C-307. The government has also taken action to address the risks that were identified through the scientific assessments.

Phthalates used in plastics also have important economic and operational benefits in Canada. I would first like to briefly explain the uses of phthalates in everyday life.

BBP is a plasticizer used in a variety of plastic products, including vinyl products such as floor tiles. It is also used to manufacture traffic cones, food conveyor belts, artificial leathers and plastic foams. The plasticizer makes the products flexible and easy to fabricate.

DBP is used in cosmetics and is a particularly common nail polish ingredient which makes polish resistant to chipping.

DEHP is a plasticizer used in medical devices such as intravenous tubing and medical bags which renders medical tubing resistant and resilient to kinks. Kinks can dangerously restrict the flow of medicine and life-saving fluids to patients, putting the safety of Canadians at risk. DEHP is also used in fragrances, hydraulic fluid and as a solvent in light sticks.

Health Canada and Environment Canada carried out assessments of these three substances between 1994 and 2000.

The assessments carried out under the authority of CEPA were peer reviewed to ensure accuracy and adequacy of coverage and were published for public comment prior to being finalized. The assessments concluded that all three substances are not harmful to the environment.

The human health assessment concluded that two of the three substances, namely BBP and DBP, did not pose any undue health risks. Therefore, Bill C-307 prohibitions on BBP and DBP are inconsistent with the peer reviewed scientific assessment conclusions.

However, the human health assessment of the third substance, DEHP, concluded that there are health risks associated with the exposure of this substance. In response to the assessment conclusion of DEHP, Health Canada requested the Canadian industry to discontinue the use of all phthalates in the manufacture of soft vinyl teethers and baby products that could be put in the mouth.

Today DEHP is already no longer used in the Canadian manufacture of soft vinyl teethers or baby products that could be put in the mouth and DEHP is not found in any cosmetics notified with Health Canada.

DEHP continues to be used in scientific medical devices. Based on extensive reviews conducted by Health Canada, it has been concluded that the use of DEHP has important benefits that are lacking in alternative substances.

One particular use of DEHP that potentially causes exposure to humans is its use in scientific medical devices. Based on extensive reviews conducted by Health Canada, it has been concluded that the use of DEHP has important benefits that are lacking with the alternatives. The use of DEHP in medical devices was reviewed by the Medical Devices Bureau of Health Canada. In addition, clinical practice guidelines have been developed with input from stakeholders and posted for comments on the Health Canada website.

Bill C-307 would have economic and practical repercussions in Canada since some alternatives to DEHP do not offer the same benefits that this substance possesses. Others are much more expensive, while others have inadequate safety data. Therefore, in these limited cases, the benefits of continued use outweigh the risks. The member's bill acknowledges these benefits by stating that the prohibition on use for medical devices should exclude blood bags, but these exclusions would have to be extended to other medical uses.

It is worth noting that on November 16, 1998, Health Canada issued as a precautionary measure a public health advisory informing parents and health care providers of very young children about the potential health risks posed by soft vinyl children's products containing another plasticizer, di-isononyl phthalate, DINP. This substance was not part of the assessment under CEPA but was found to be a replacement for DEHP.

At that time, parents and caregivers of children under the age of one were advised to dispose of soft vinyl teethers and rattles. In the interest of the health and safety of children, Health Canada also requested the industry to immediately stop production and sale of those products. As a result of this action, soft vinyl teethers and rattles containing DINP have been voluntarily withdrawn from the Canadian market.

Beyond these specific substances, the Government of Canada is very concerned about the risks to human health and especially to children from these chemicals. To prevent exposure to new harmful chemicals, Health Canada and Environment Canada assess potential risks of chemicals before they come into use in the Canadian marketplace and take steps to manage the risks or to prohibit the use of new chemicals where the risks cannot be adequately managed. This program has been in place for nearly 15 years and over 800 chemicals are assessed annually.

Through this program we collaborate with other countries to harmonize our assessments of new chemicals before they are introduced into commerce. This prevents the creation of new problems. This is an example of pollution prevention in action, which is a cornerstone of CEPA.

This government remains concerned about the human health impacts of existing sources of pollution and in particular, air pollution. This government is in the midst of comprehensive and integrated action to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Canadians will see in the coming months, as we develop our made in Canada approach for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, additional initiatives to protect our health and our environment.

We also recognize that instead of focusing our attention on one or a few substances at a time, this government needs to take a more comprehensive and integrated approach that will put Canada at the forefront of substance management.

The House of Commons assigned the review of CEPA 1999 to the Standing committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 26 of this year. The committee began hearings on May 10. The environment committee's review of CEPA will provide the Government of Canada with an opportunity to review the contribution of CEPA to the goals of pollution prevention, sustainable development and federal-provincial-territorial cooperation.

As I have said, this government is committed to ensuring that the health of our citizens and our environment is safeguarded. While we appreciate the intent of the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley to eliminate phthalates, the government has already taken steps through the appropriate procedures and authorities in regard to BBP, DBP and DEHP.

Bill C-307 attempts to circumvent the comprehensive scientific assessment of phthalates and instead make an assessment based on politics. This legislation would unfortunately confuse and create redundancy within the process. I would encourage the member to respect the scientific assessment process. He indicated that he disagrees with the scientific assessment of phthalates. He called it pseudo-science.

I encourage him to instead use the appropriate process, which is the CEPA review. I would recommend that he bring his concerns and recommendations regarding phthalates to the department, which is carrying out the assessment. I look forward to discussing it in that context.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's remarks. She made comments like, “The government's promises, the delivery rings hollow”. She also spoke about the clenched fist.

I would like to share a short story about what happened in my riding of Langley. We have two first nations, the Katzie and the Kwantlen. The Kwantlen First Nation lives on McMillan Island in the middle of the Fraser River. For the last 30 years that island has been eroding, disappearing into the Fraser River.

A year and a half ago I began working with the Kwantlen to resolve that. That was working and speaking to the former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, trying to find the dollars to stop the erosion of the Kwantlen's island into the Fraser River.

I also talked to the critic, who is now our minister. I made him aware of the problem of that island disappearing. There was acre after acre disappearing every year into the Fraser River and the Kwantlen First Nation was looking for help. All I received from the former minister was the runaround, a year and a half of broken promises, as the member talked about, hollow promises, that is all I received.

She talked about a clenched fist. That island kept disappearing which affected the health and environment of that first nations group. It was shameful how the Liberals treated the Kwantlen First Nation. Within a month and a half, the money was there, $2.5 million. It came to Langley and the Kwantlen First Nation is being taken care of.

I ask that member, where was she when I brought it up in the House many times? Where was she then? She talked about a clenched fist. I would like her to answer why her government had a clenched fist against first nations in the last Parliament?

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member speaking about his private member's bill. I serve on the environment committee with the member and I find it interesting and disappointing that we did not hear any reason from him for why he and his party did not speak up when, for the last 13 years, his government did absolutely nothing.

I find it very disappointing. The member spoke about a strong desire and a political and moral responsibility. I would agree that we have that political responsibility and that is why this government is committed to cleaning up the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We will not be supporting this private member's bill, Bill C-288.

Climate change is one of the most complex, cross-cutting issues facing the world today. It is a long term challenge that cannot be addressed without effective international cooperation. The international community has always understood that the Kyoto protocol is a good first step, but it is only a first step.

The protocol has both strengths and weaknesses. It was the first international instrument under which developed countries came to an agreement to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the protocol includes only short term national targets for a relatively small number of countries. It does not address a global solution to climate change over the longer term.

In the year 2000, the countries with targets under the Kyoto protocol accounted for only 28% of global greenhouse emissions. Indeed, a mandate review of the protocol was already started in Bonn this past May. Canada is playing an active role in this review, which will assess what has worked under the Kyoto protocol and what has not worked well, in order to better inform our discussions on the future.

Future actions on climate change must address the need for long term action with all global emitters. This is why all parties to the convention agreed to begin a new dialogue on long term cooperative action to address climate change with all parties, not just the countries under the protocol.

The first workshop of that dialogue took place in Bonn last month. Canada will continue to play an active role in this dialogue process as well.

Because the situation that each country faces is unique, there are many options, considerations and viewpoints about how the international community should move forward when the first commitment period of the protocol finishes. It is precisely because each country has its own unique national circumstances that many countries firmly believe the future approach will need to allow for different types of commitments.

In Bonn, consultations started on the Russian Federation proposal for allowing voluntary commitments to be made by countries that do not currently have targets under the protocol. This important issue is moving forward.

To be effective in addressing global climate change, international cooperation on climate change must meet a number of conditions.

First, it will need to be based on the principles of flexibility, cost effectiveness and national circumstances and recognize a broad range of approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, it will need broad participation by developed and developing countries alike, with an eye on long term objectives.

Third, addressing climate change in the face of rising global energy demand will require effective development and deployment of technologies within both developed and developing countries.

Finally, global action on climate change must integrate the additional co-benefits provided at the local level, such as improved air quality.

Canada is committed to working to ensure that future international cooperation satisfies those conditions. That is why we are playing a leadership role internationally on the two-track discussions under the UN framework convention on climate change new future dialogues that were launched in Bonn last May.

The dialogue on long term cooperation action is open to all 189 countries, including the United States, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was set up to share experiences and to examine innovative new future approaches to address climate change.

The dialogue is significant because it is not simply tied to the Kyoto style approach of national targets for developed countries. In addition, it can openly examine better ways of engaging countries in cooperative action on climate change. This dialogue includes participation by all major emitting developing countries, such as India and China, as well as the United States and Australia.

The United States emits approximately 20% of global greenhouse gases and India and China together account for approximately 20%. By comparison, Canada's share is approximately 2%. It is important that all countries participate in the dialogue. Climate change is a global problem and requires a real global solution.

The second vehicle is the ad hoc working group on further commitments for developed countries under the protocol beyond 2012. The ad hoc working group discussions will review and assist the implementation of the protocol to date and will discuss considering new types of commitments. These discussions should be broad enough to allow for consideration of alternative approaches to international cooperation and opportunities for those countries that do not have Kyoto targets to participate in the future. At this point, this process is only a discussion of the items that will need to be assessed before developed countries can consider any new commitments.

These two processes are not proceeding in isolation, nor should they. They must inform each other. They must also recognize other multilateral approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is actively engaged internationally and will continue to do so, going forward in a way that is consistent with our national circumstances and that advances national interests.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to begin by thanking the member for her work on this file and her obvious concern for the environment.

The government does not support Bill C-298, her private member's bill, dealing with the chemical substance perfluorooctane sulfonate, known as PFOS.

Both the ministers of environment and health have already conducted a draft assessment on the risks of PFOS that it may pose to both humans and the environment, and the member acknowledged that in her speech. The ministers will also follow up with proposed actions to manage identified risks.

The government has an open and transparent process under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA 99, to assess and manage the risks posed by substances such as PFOS. Under the current legislation in CEPA 99 substances come forward for a scientific risk assessment. The risks of the scientific assessment are then used to initiative appropriate risk management actions.

As members of the House are aware, CEPA 99 was enacted to protect the environment and human health. As I said earlier, the departments of environment and health have been actively evaluating the science of PFOS in order to make sound decisions concerning the risks that PFOS may pose and the most suitable risk management actions to take if required.

As part of the science assessment the departments consider all available scientific information concerning PFOS and follow an open and transparent assessment process as required under CEPA 99.

Officials from Environment Canada and Health Canada have drafted a screening risk assessment of PFOS. As part of the process a draft assessment was released in October 2004 for review by a large number of scientific experts in the field. It was formally released to solicit public comment.

In releasing the draft assessment the ministers gave notice of their intent to recommend that PFOS be added to the list of toxic substances under CEPA 99. All comments received on the proposal and assessment were carefully considered and incorporated into the assessment where appropriate.

The revised assessment concludes that PFOS is a persistent biocumulative and inherently toxic substance in the environment. Furthermore, the revised assessment concludes that PFOS is entering the environment in concentrations that may have a harmful effect on the environment. These conclusions have not changed from the initial draft assessment. Canada's conclusions are also in agreement with the assessment decisions and actions of other countries.

The revised assessment states that PFOS meets criteria established under section 64 of CEPA 99. In examining the risks posed by this substance to humans, it was concluded that concentrations of PFOS do not currently constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. The final science risk assessment should be published shortly.

I would like to now provide some context on what PFOS is, its use and its potential impact on the Canadian environment. PFOS has been used primarily for oil, grease and water repellants, specifically used on rugs, carpets, fabric, upholstery and food packaging. The hon. member mentioned some of those. PFOS has also some specialized uses such as firefighting foams and hydraulic fluids.

It should be emphasized that PFOS is not manufactured in Canada. PFOS is not in the Canadian marketplace and is largely unavailable to the average Canadian consumer. Emerging science shows that PFOS is found around the globe in the environment and wildlife.

Transported over long distances by air movements and ocean currents, PFOS is found in remote regions such as the Arctic. Some of the highest concentrations measured in the world are in polar bears in the Canadian Arctic. Leading Canadian scientists have spearheaded this groundbreaking research.

PFOS has been found in many fish, fish-eating birds and Arctic mammals such as polar bears. It has been shown to accumulate in animal tissue and concentrating in increasing amounts up the food chain.

These concentrations are at or approaching the levels known to cause harm to wildlife. Harmful effects can include regressing growth in birds and aquatic invertebrates, liver and thyroid effects in mammals, lethality in fish and changes to biodiversity. Concentrations of PFOS in polar bears are higher than any other known persistent organic pollutants, otherwise known as POPs.

Therefore, as noted previously, the ministers gave notice that based on available information, they propose adding PFOS to the list of toxic substances.

The problem with Bill C-298 is that it would disrupt the process that is currently under way to develop a comprehensive risk management strategy. This proposed risk management strategy will ensure the protection of the health of Canadians and their environment. Under the existing legislation and regulatory framework, the Department of the Environment will soon propose a risk management strategy, in consultation with stakeholders, to address PFOS and to ensure the protection of the environment.

Furthermore, the department's proposed risk management actions will be consistent with international actions and activities on this substance. For example, the United States has established restrictions to control new uses of PFOS. The United Kingdom has proposed restrictions on the supply and use of PFOS. Sweden has filed a proposal to the European Commission for a national ban on PFOS. The European Union has proposed market instruments and use restrictions of PFOS in 2006.

Canada is engaged in multinational efforts to address the risks posed by this substance. For example, Canada is a signatory of a number of relevant international agreements. We acknowledge the nomination of PFOS to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe protocol on long range transboundary air pollution, and its nomination to the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants.

Canada will continue to engage our international partners in global action on PFOS to complement our domestic policy. Supporting these efforts is critical to addressing the long range transport of PFOS into the Canadian environment.

In conclusion, we do not want to jeopardize the assessment process as it nears completion for PFOS. It is clear that under its current powers and authorities the government is committed to the control of toxic substances and pollution prevention. The necessary steps are being taken to further the continued protection of the Canadian environment, particularly the Arctic ecosystems, and to minimize impacts.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the comments made by the parliamentary secretary for international trade. I have seen her passion over the last couple of years working on seniors' issues. As we live life we learn from others, and her involvement with seniors is an example to all of us.

Having elderly parents in their eighties, one finds out about the need for things like railings in the house and in washrooms. Her announcement, ensuring things like the CMHC and what is happening there, that they are helping in caring for seniors is encouraging.

We have heard a number of announcements from the government on seniors' issues. Could the member tell us whether seniors in general support the policy of the government? Are they happy with the direction in which we are heading? I am very positive on what we are doing but we want to hear from seniors and I would like input from her.

[June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome all members of the House to work with us as we map out our made in Canada plan that improves our air quality and lowers our greenhouse gas emissions.

We plan to develop and deploy leading edge technologies that are clean and efficient in their conversion of energy and resources into goods and services. If we succeed in this endeavour, we can lay the foundation for a prosperous and sustainable economy that will be the envy of the world while ensuring that future generations inherit a stable and productive environment.

[June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his interest and hard work on the environment file. I look forward to working with him to make sure that we have effective programs that help clean Canada.

Regarding his questions on the different programs, I believe that the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken about this issue on numerous occasions. It is hard to justify continuing programs that require that 50¢ out of every $1 go to administration costs.

While we appreciate there are sound reasons for encouraging homeowners to take steps to improve the thermal efficiencies of their homes, we as a government are strongly committed to taxpayer value for money and effective program design and administration.

Continuing programs that require $2 of funding for every $1 of subsidy is just not acceptable.

We appreciate the important role that energy efficiency can play. Energy efficiency can strengthen economic competitiveness. It can lower the cost of heating, cooling and other energy services, reduce investment in infrastructure supply and reduce emissions to the environment.

As we move forward we are committed to developing an approach to clean air and greenhouse gas reductions that is effective and that produces real results. We need to see emission levels decline through the interventions that we as a government put into effect. That is the bottom line.

There has been little effect seen from the previous government's programs aimed at climate change or clean air. There has been no improvement in air quality and greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The government is committed to delivering a made in Canada approach that sees real progress in cleaning up our environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We will do this in an open and transparent manner by setting realistic and achievable goals. We expect that the full scope of the government's made in Canada solution to clean air and climate change will be articulated in the months ahead.