Nathan Cullen

[Aeronautics Act, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I rise to speak to Bill C-6. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to deal with an issue that many of our constituents do not have the time or the ability to delve into this type of legislation, but yet it impacts their lives in a serious way.

The region I represent in northwestern British Columbia is often described as remote. It is certainly spread out. When I return to my constituency, I use any one of a number of seven different airports to access the communities and villages that I serve and represent. Air safety is one of the most important issues for the constituents who I represent.

It goes without saying that the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is laudable and commendable due to his unending energy in trying to squeeze out of the government and the other opposition parties better legislation. We all know that at the end of the day, regardless of partisan interests, we only want to promote legislation that most protects the health and safety of Canadians. Members of Parliament only want legislation that properly balances the powers that be within the country and those interests of the voters who we represent.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is a broad, sweeping bill. It is a bill that has had some long history of debate. It has been pushed by various governments, previous Conservative and Liberal governments, and now the current Conservative government. Each time the bill is presented, the part which is most desperately flawed pertains to the interests of average Canadians.

Representatives from the industry are always front and centre and are always well represented and well rehearsed in the things that they want primarily around the issue of self-regulation and them being able to monitor themselves and their safety record. Whereas, the bill does not balance properly on the side of constituents, flyers, people who rely upon air travel and depend upon it.

Often the captain will come on the intercom and comment that the most dangerous thing we will do that day is drive to and from the airport and that the flying is incredibly safe. This is an unbelievably important part of the airline industry.

Anyone who knows the history of the airline industry in North America, the first and most important thing it had to address and deal with was the concept that this was a dangerous activity. For many people initially, the idea of getting into a plane was considered very dangerous and it was. There were very few regulations and safety requirements, much like it was getting into an automobile when they were first invented, but there was an evolution. We saw an evolution in regulations, unfortunately often driven by accidents.

When an air accident would occur, the transportation and safety review board, or whatever incarnation there was at the time, would come on to the scene, review what had happened and then make recommendations to the government, which it could enshrine either in legislation or regulations, but something that would then protect the public. This would then give greater assurance to future travellers that they and their families would be safe.

There has been a natural tension and while potentially healthy, it also has the potential for great harm. That tension is between the air carriers, the companies involved, particularly the two major national ones, and their interests. Generally speaking, if we speak of fiduciary responsibilities, it is the maximization of profit for their shareholders. That is what their board and corporate governance structure is meant to do. It is meant to allow the greatest benefit derived for all those who have invested in their companies. This is matched off against the need for proper regulations and safety requirements. Lo and behold, sometimes safety actually costs money and time.

To ensure that something is safe and it is something we can all live by, it has to be done right. It has to be fixed right. It has to be of the highest quality and standards.

Many members of Parliament, as this session ends, will be considering their travel plans. Many of us have to board an airplane. In all the confusion in trying to get onboard that airplane, one thing we do not often think about. We assume our travel experience, while it will be potentially long and annoying, because we are on these things all the time, will be safe. That is something that goes without saying because there have been relatively few accidents in the Canadian airline industry.

The tension that exists and that is not properly balanced within Bill C-6 is between the role of government and the role of the private sector. Government has no right and no business telling the airline industry how to run a maximizing profit industry. That is the responsibility of the airline executives, management and consulting crews.

The government's responsibility is to balance those interests with the interests and safety of Canadians. Canadians trust our ability and our tenacity to ensure we never pass laws that would put them in any jeopardy.

Lo and behold, this bill moves toward a self-monitoring, a self-regulating and a self-inspecting regime. This would allow the industry to make up rules and decide what level of risk and safety would be permissible. The industry's sole and primary interest is not only making a profit. The industry's interests are mixed. Ours is to allow a healthy industry to exist while at the same time balance the public benefit.

There are two analogies that I would like to mention to members and they work best for my region in northern British Columbia. One is in the forestry sector and the other is in the train sector.

Many of the rail systems in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, for convenience sake or just by fate of history often run beside many of our major waterways. Over the last number of years, we have seen an increasing rate of serious train accidents, which have caused us grave concern. Many of these trains pass right through our towns and our communities, sometimes within 100 feet of people's homes. The buffer between having a safe and reliable train system and having one that causes great harm is not great. There is not a lot of space.

As the industry has moved toward self-regulation, self-monitoring, deciding within its own confines what is safe and not safe, exactly what the airline industry is asking for, the accident rate goes up.

I speak with rail workers every day when I am in my constituency of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. They privately talk to me about what is going on within their industry. They tell me that the drive toward the bottom line has become intense. The basic safety mechanisms that have been developed over time, often based upon accidents, have not been made out of thin area. Inspectors go on site after a major accident and they design a safety protocol after they realize what went wrong. That is meant to happen. That is the reason we go about these things.

When an industry is moved toward deregulation and self-monitoring, all those regulations come into question. All those safety mechanisms potentially go off the books. If an industry feels it is cutting too much into its bottom line, it can decide that a particular safety clause designed back in 1985 no longer pertains and it costs $1 million a year, and it will let that clause slide.

With no transparency at all existing within the bill for the airline industry, Canadians will not know what safety regulations have been taken out. In the future imagined by this bill, there will be no way of knowing whether all the safety procedures were taken or not. It was not up to any regulator to decide; it was up to the industry to decide. While we all hope that safety is important to the industry, with this conflict of interest built within the bill, it is not a risk that we can take.

The other sector that is important in our region is the forestry sector. Whenever there was a fatality within the forestry sector, inspectors would go to the accident site to find out what went wrong. They decided that certain safety measures had to be put in place to prevent the future loss of life. It was shown that rules and protocols were necessary.

When we moved to a deregulated forestry sector, when we moved to a place where health and safety requirements were placed in the hands of the company with a profit motive, there was a huge spike in the number of forestry fatalities in British Columbia. There were 50 last year. Those 50 lives could have been saved.

What we need to do at this moment is to reconsider the bill from top to bottom, move the amendments that the NDP has called for and then build something that we can all be proud of. It should not be to the rush of some limit of time but something that we know will keep Canadians safe.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 20th, 2007]

With respect to the Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia and Alberta: (a) what is the most up-to-date assessment of the economic impact of the infestation, including, but not limited to, lost lumber, hectares, employment, and longer term regional development; (b) how many communities and families are affected by the infestation, according to province; (c) within affected areas, which communities are considered to be the least and worst hit, according to province; (d) what financial resources are estimated to be needed to adequately respond to the crisis, on an annual basis; (e) how much money has the government committed to the problem over the last five years, on an annual basis; (f) what were the dates upon which these funding announcements were made; (g) of these funds, what amount has actually been disbursed, on an annual basis; (h) from which departmental budget were these funds disbursed, or to have been disbursed from; (i) which communities in British Columbia and Alberta, on an annual basis, received federal money to tackle the infestation, and in each case, name the recipient agencies and projects that received funding; and (j) which branches, of which departments, are tasked with developing and implementing a strategy to tackle the infestation?

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are different choices that members of Parliament can make when it comes to private members' legislation. Certain bills grab a lot of attention and seek the headlines. Others go to a specific case involving a constituent. With respect to this bill, we wanted to combine the issue of environment and health. We wanted a bill that would eventually have results. We did not want a token bill. We wanted a bill that would make a difference and change the way things are produced. We wanted a bill that would protect the health of Canadians.

We looked at the various predominant chemicals such as mercury and a number of the PCBs, the toxic chemicals of note and repute. We looked at the chemicals that most Canadians could identify as being bad. A lot of work had been done on them, but the fight was very clear on this one. These phthalates, while not well known, are instructive for legislators as an example of how to deal with other toxins, those that are involved in our manufacturing process, those that do not have 100% certainty. The case has not been closed with respect to these chemicals, but it has been very strongly presented that there are problems with phthalates.

This is a good example of how current legislation has been failing us. If the rule and the letter of the law of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act had been applied, the changes in this bill would have been made already. I feel absolutely certain of that. A number of health groups also feel that way.

While the obscurity of the actual chemicals was a threat to getting proper attention from Canadian families, we realized that in changing Canadian practice this was the best way to go.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when we looked at vulnerable populations oftentimes women were brought up as one group, particularly in regard to the transference of these toxins to their newborns. I did not go through the list of what these chemicals actually manifest themselves as in the human system. The reason I resist is only for the sake of civility. This starts in the womb. The way that these chemicals exhibit themselves, particularly in young children, can affect the growth and the actual physical nature of children from that point on.

The notion of looking at groups such as seniors and women in particular goes on an issue by issue basis. Oftentimes when we are talking about air quality, we definitely look at seniors to identify if they are more vulnerable to smog or one pollutant or another. That is one sure category that we look at.

With respect to women, a whole range of studies has been done on breast milk and toxicity. Women in northern populations in Canada were suddenly showing up with levels of mercury in their breast milk that in effect were making their children toxic. The breast milk could become so toxic in nature that health officials were recommending that women did not breastfeed.

If there is any indication for us as leaders in this country that things are not right, it clearly must be these indicators. When health officials are advising women in this country not to breastfeed their children because they themselves are toxic and that in doing so they will be causing harm to their children, that has to be an indication.

Clearly there is the science. There is the testing. There is the proper rigour. There is also the intuitive understanding, because the anecdotal information that we know about and see before us says that we are not doing it right.

I will turn to the member's second question about mandatory labelling. Boy, is there a lot of fear within industry about doing this. It is the same question we had when automakers were asked to put labels on their vehicles as to fuel efficiency. They said they could not do that because it would destroy them and consumers did not want to know that. Lo and behold, they did it, and now consumers use it as one of the choices they make when deciding things.

It is very difficult to say that labelling will answer this problem entirely, because who knows what a phthalate is? When someone is entering hospital or putting their child in hospital, the education level of the average Canadian makes it difficult to ask the hospital to check for phthalates.

We really believe that while labelling can be important, the onus rests within government to protect the overall and general health of Canadians, particularly when we have the information at hand, particularly when we know that substitutes are available, and when the precautionary principle tells us to just not introduce this to people, to not expose people to this.

Labelling can play a role, but we should not be overly reliant on it, because it then means that the education level is high enough that it will mean something.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for members who are following the process of the bill, many, unlike you, will get dismayed by the language and terminology used and contained within it. The chemicals that are addressed within the bill, while complicated in their nature and obvious pronunciation, which again you had no problem with and it was quite remarkable, many parliamentarians will say that this is awfully specific and they may ask why this has been raised at this time.

A number of principles are contained within the bill, which we fought for rigorously and had considered for a long time. This is one of the few and rare exceptions that we will be bringing something as important, as specific, to the protection of Canadians and their health, particularly to the health of our children.

The concept around the family of chemicals known as phthalates has been raised by New Democratic members in this place for 12 years now. Various members from different parts of the country have raised the issues of what is contained in our consumer products in particular, how that will eventually affect the health of Canadians and the way the government is ill-equipped to deal with it on a day to day basis.

Many Canadians, when considering the role of governments or the role of private industry, assume that governments will take on the capacity of protecting the overall health and well-being of Canadians, by not allowing products and chemicals that harm us to enter our bloodstream, our health and our environment. They would never knowingly do this.

The challenge facing government is the enormous number of chemicals that are introduced each and every year by various industries, both domestically and internationally, and how to contain them and have some sort of understanding of what effect those chemicals have on human health.

This particular group of chemicals known as phthalates are used predominantly in the softening of plastics. Various members in the House will know that even the cords we use in our microphones allow this plastic flexibility. They are often use in children's toys, rubber duckies, teethers, et cetera to soften the plastics. Oftentimes they contain serious quantities of phthalates in them. This would not be a problem, except for the fact that government health agencies around the world have identified certain parts of these chemicals to be developmental and reproductive toxins.

For a number of people watching, they might wonder why these chemicals, which are known to have such harmful effects, have been used for so long. In various lab testings they have been found to cause tumours. They are endocrine disrupters. That means they go to the genetic reproductive level of humans and cause disruptions. In particular, they get concentrated in small children and affect their developmental growth.

How could we have allowed these chemicals to go through our manufacturing process and be used for so long? Clearly, there must be some reasons. For a number of years, industry has presented various reasons.

Recently the government was engaged in the review of the Canadian Environment Protection Act, known as CEPA for short, which was designed some years ago. It was up for review for a number of years and, finally, after haranguing, we were able to get it through the committee and present a number of important recommendations. I suggest those recommendations dovetail in with the recommendations proposed in Bill C-307.

Government is oftentimes catching up to the developments that go on within the chemical and manufacturing industries. The innovation and consumer demand for new and innovative products is so high that the manufacturers are seeking new ways to present their products.

Unfortunately, when dealing with these three phthalates, BBP, DBP and DEHP, they are often presented in such a way where the proper rigorous testing is never brought. Government does not have the resources at capacity, and we have heard this from testimony in front of us and also when we reviewed CEPA, to do the proper testing.

It seems that in government there is a certain amount of aversion to raising any alarm bell. These very chemicals were reviewed in 1994 and 2004. They were found to be what is called not CEPA toxic. Unfortunately, the nature and design of the tests can often predetermine the results. When the government, particularly in 1994 but also 2004, went through the testing, it eliminated things like consumer products.

I have already listed some of the products that contain these chemicals, but there are others such as cosmetics, nail polish, blush and mascara. All these are also known to contain these chemicals.

When the government went through the review on the exposure of Canadians to chemicals and whether that exposure would be harmful, it excluded all consumer products. It seems a bit dastardly and at the very least shortsighted. One tries to take some measure of faith within the hard-working civil servants, but that oversight needs to be corrected.

The bill seeks to correct that. There would be another review process for these chemicals. We would include consumer products. We would also include up to date information, not information that was known 13 or 15 years ago.

The bill seeks to do a number of other important things, but it is important at this time to recognize the validators that have come on board such as the Canadian Cancer Society and a whole swath of environmental and health groups that have seen their way to support the merits of the bill, as well as other jurisdictions, in particular Europe, which has been conducting a process called REACH. It is a new vision of looking at chemicals, trying to instill principles such as substitution. It is also the review of chemicals in such a way that we avoid unnecessary risk and harm. It is the precautionary principle, which is written into Canadian law but is almost never practised.

Let me deal with each of them separately.

The precautionary principle says that even in the absence of 100% certainty, we take a cautious route and try not to expose Canadians to something we suspect might be harmful, but still requires further study. We do this all the time and every day in our lives. We know there is not a 100% certainty of falling off a bicycle and getting a head injury, but we put on a helmet anyway. The precautionary principle says that there is some chance this could happen, and we all recommend that for our children. We say in this cautious way that we will recommend this thing. That principle is built into the bill, and we believe for the first time in Canadian legislation. It says we must take a precautionary approach.

The second principle is one around substitution. Oftentimes when legislators of all levels of government seek to ban a dangerous chemical, unfortunately the industry will come forward and raise the economic spectre. It will say not to do it, that it will be too expensive and it will cost Canadians jobs. We have to weigh out that fear. Is it true or is the industry avoiding change?

What the substitution principle says is that the government, when a known dangerous chemical is being introduced into a product, must first seek and demand of the manufacturer, not of citizens or government, to look for alternatives. Is there an alternative available to soften plastics or to apply cosmetics that will function in the same way the manufacturer seeks, but will not harm Canadians?

That substitution principle is one of the recommendations the environment committee, I believe unanimously, suggested in its review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and it is one of the essential things within this bill.

I want to point out a number of other things that are required under the bill.

It requires that regulations respecting cosmetics that contain DEHP, one of these chemicals, under the Food and Drugs Act. It requires products such as toys that contain DEHP and that may come in contact with the mouth of a child less than three years to be prohibited.

An important side note is a certain amount of leaching goes on in a plastic water bottles over time. One of the quickest ways to have these chemicals enter into the greater environment is to chew it, to masticate it.

The sad irony is we were finding products and toys that were designed to be chewed also containing these harmful chemicals. That is the absolute principle of unintended consequences. I believe no manufacturer in the world would put these chemicals in toys, knowingly realizing that children would be releasing these chemicals into their mouths. This bill would prevent that.

There is also a whole sector around medical devices. Here is another system of unintended consequences. There are medical devices that are plastic but they are softened. We know through studies that these chemicals will leach out of the plastics and into whatever is being used. We have blood transfusions and transfusions of many kinds and other testing. This is the absolute last moment, with the vulnerable population of children and now the vulnerable population of those seeking medical attention. They are in hospital for an obvious reason and now, lo and behold, while they are there receiving things like transfusions, they may be receiving a known reproductive toxin.

There are a number of things that did not happen in this bill. I suppose in a minority Parliament, as in many places in life, that concessions have to be made. We wanted to go a step further than the bill describes. There should be an outright ban on all these chemicals in cosmetics and toys. We also asked for a phase-in period for medical devices.

There is still reluctance on the government's part. We appreciate that there have been some concessions by the government and those within the bureaucracy, but we still believe, in principle, that there is much further to go. We still believe that when the government goes through its testing and retesting, with the proper parameters, and with a good look at these chemicals, it will realize there are substitutes available. We had witnesses come before us to talk about medical devices. They said that they had held these medical devices in their hands and they did not contain any of these chemicals. They can be made and at a cost benefit.

Hospitals in this country and across the United States have labelled themselves phthalate free. When people enter those hospital, there is no chance of contact because they have self-initiated. When they looked at the studies and did the research, they encouraged the manufacturers. The manufacturers have stepped to the plate because, lo and behold, there is a market. They have made the products that then go to the hospitals where there is no potential for contamination.

We think some Canadian hospitals have moved this way, and there will be growing numbers. We would recommend that the government get ahead of these health and hospital groups and look at making these things come true.

Another essential principle is identifying vulnerable populations in the bill. When we deal with the notion of toxins in our environment, oftentimes in past legislation and with previous governments adults have been the test group. Many would argue that it makes sense.

However, when we look at the conditions and the nature of children, they have a higher absorption rate of many of these toxins because of their body mass to skin ratio. These are used by the medical and health communities to determine someone's vulnerability to a toxin. Children are almost in all cases more vulnerable than an adult.

Recently one of the environment groups in Canada did toxicology of our blood. It tested famous Canadians. The former minister of the environment and the leader of the NDP found they were exhibiting levels of mercury, PCBs and other things in their blood, some that have been banned for a number of years. They are bio-accumulative. They come through our bloodstream.

One of the results of this testing showed that even in families that had made a concerted effort to live well had toxic levels as high as other Canadians in some cases. They do not live in a particularly toxic air shed or environment, they try to eat well and do all the things we tell Canadians to do. In fact, their children's toxicity was higher than the adults.

One of the first nations' elders in my community commented to me the other day, while we were talking about another issue, that “we must become good ancestors”. I thought this was a powerful way for us to think about it as the leadership in our country. We must conduct ourselves in a way that future generations will look back and thank us for the work that we did and honour our memory, not in a way that we have seen our generation conduct itself by leaving behind problems and not solutions. We are leaving behind a more toxic world, not a cleaner one.

In a small way, but an important way, we believe the bill pushes us in the right direction: substitution, precautionary principle and looking at vulnerable populations. I think Canadians when given the measure will find important, will find meritorious. We look for support for this bill from all sides.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed that. It was as arduous as the process of getting the bill to this point in the legislature. I would check one thing with you. There was some debate as to allotment of time for speaking and then for questions afterwards. Could there be some clarification?

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Phthalate Control Act, June 19th, 2007]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-307, in Clause 2.1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 10 on page 1 with the following:

“phtalate est de moins de 0,1 % de la masse du”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-307, in Clause 3.3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 3 with the following:

“Environmental Protection Act, 1999, of benzyl”

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, passions flare quite quickly when we get into this issue, but I want to get into something that might be a bit more dispassionate.

One of the major concerns that the people whom I represent in northern British Columbia brought forward to me, when we were debating the gun registry back in 2003, 2004 and 2005, was the issue of cost. There are those who are ideologically opposed to the registry on principle of having to register a firearm of any kind in any place in the country. I do not fundamentally agree with those people. We have been registering firearms in the country, in various ways, for many decades. However, there are those in my constituency, and I would imagine in her constituency as well, who have opposed the cost overruns from the beginning.

I also want to talk about the costing of this registry program since the new government has come in. First, is she aware of what the total cost overruns were for the registry leading up to the break in the last election and the change of governance? Then, what has happened in the last 18 months in terms of the costs of the registry?

I can remember Conservative opponents of mine in my region and former representatives from my region, who were Reform, then Alliance and then Conservative members, often focused and fixated on the costs. That was the major push. They did not often speak of the ideology. However, since taking government, I am curious as to what the current numbers are and if this is a top priority for the current regime, to deal with the registry and the costs.

What has happened to the actual spending on behalf of hard-working Canadian taxpayers in relation to this registry?

[Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her fine speech and the work she continues to do in repairing the relations particularly in British Columbia between first nations and non-first nations people.

So much harm has occurred over the decades, nearing a century now, by governments that act in bad faith time and time again. First nations return to the table in good faith attempting to restore and re-establish a relationship.

The particular question I have for my colleague is with respect to the new agreement that is coming forward. There are seven or eight I think is the current total of what we call modern day treaties, treaties that have been established over the last 15 to 20 years. In my part of the world in the northwest it is the Nisga'a who have established a treaty. It seems that, similar to the court cases that have to be brought by first nations, it is not so much the initial winning of the court case but it is the establishment of law after that. The fight continues on.

I am wondering if she could indicate for the new people who are signing a treaty what some of the pitfalls are that are being witnessed by these modern day treaty groups who have formed a coalition around themselves, for example, James Bay and some others. The government seems to not understand what it is to finally have established some terms of reference that this new group should be aware of.

A lot of Canadians will say that once a treaty is signed, it is done, and will walk away. A lot of first nations groups will assume that new relationship is now cast but in fact the case is otherwise. The establishment of a treaty is only one piece and there is a huge education process that has to go on for government in the next stage of development of the relationship.