Matthew Kellway

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very modest criticism of this mission. We have seen over and over again in this area of the world that responses from western countries in the form of military action, even to the extent of well over 100,000 troops on the ground in certain countries, do not reap the goals that we hope for the rest of humanity, which is the ability to live in peace and security and fulfill our potential here in this world.

To suggest that there is a blind spot here is a very modest conclusion. There is no end game that the Conservatives have in mind. They talk about “defeating” and “eliminating”. They use all sorts of words to characterize what they hope to do in the end against a counterterrorism movement that currently occupies territory the size of the United Kingdom in Syria and Iraq and through associative groups has spread through other continents.

We hear today from the Minister of National Defence that the end game is that we will leave when we have had enough, and that is more than a blind spot to this mission. That tells us that we really do not have a mission.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is not clear what the Liberal position is on this matter.

Resolution 2178, which I cited, talks about the complementary measures of respect for law, for human rights, for freedoms, et cetera, and effective counterterrorism measures, yet we have the Liberal Party standing up in support of Bill C-51 before that bill is even tabled and remaining on their feet in support of that bill while knowing that it robs Canadians of rights and freedoms and fundamental human rights.

The Liberal position on the broader issue of counterterrorism, on the broader issue of the public safety of Canadians, and on this issue of the expanded mission in Syria is perfectly unclear to me and, I think, to the majority of Canadians.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we are virtually alone among all those coalition countries in expanding this mission into Syria. It is only the United States that has assumed aerial bombardment of Syria, and we are alone as the only country that has committed ground troops to combat as part of this mission.

I think what the member misses is the very fundamental point here, which is our ability to trust the government, our ability to trust that this government takes its responsibility for the lives of Canadian Armed Forces men and women sufficiently seriously. It is the very fact that this government holds great disregard for the rule of international law, as reflected in the comments of the Prime Minister in this House. That disregard for international law, as reflected in the fact that the government has not taken the necessary steps required under the UN charter to get legal approval for this mission, is what informs our position, in part at least, on the mission that the government is proposing to undertake.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is formally today seeking from all of us in this place our support for extending and expanding Canada's military mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, commonly known as ISIL. With this motion the government is asking that we agree to continue to put men and women of Canada's armed forces in harm's way in Iraq and over, if not in, Syria.

That harm may find them is most obvious now in the wake of the recent and tragic death of Sergeant Doiron. May he rest in peace and may those who knew him and loved him find solace in some way. May his life and his fate be at the forefront of our minds as we consider this motion. Not just Sergeant Doiron's life, but let us also think about the 158 Canadians who died in service to this country in our war in Afghanistan, about the thousands who were injured, about the thousands more who will wrestle forever with post-traumatic stress disorder and about those who could not live any longer with the experience or memory of their service in Afghanistan and took their own lives.

This is the inevitability of war. This is what the Conservative government is asking us to accept with this motion. This debate then is about our responsibility for their lives, the lives of the men and women of our armed forces. Sometimes circumstances warrant our approval of military action. History, including our own Canadian history of military action, tells us that sometimes circumstances warrant that we say yes, knowing that those who go into military action on behalf of this country may not come back whole, if at all.

It follows that a few important requirements need to be met before “yes” can be the answer, before support for military action can be forthcoming. The first and most fundamental of these is trust. Trust in the government, trust that the government will abide by the language of the motion before us, trust that it will hold sacred the consent and the limits to that consent as set out in the motion before us given to it by the House.

We know the answer to this question. It has been provided to us many times over in many ways, but we need not reach any further than this mission before us. The House has been misled and the consent provided by the House for the mission to date has been abused. On September 4, the Prime Minister announced the deployment of several dozen military advisers for up to 30 days to help the Kurds in Iraq. We were told that this was an advise and assist mission.

On September 30, the Prime Minister told us in the House that Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat. Over and over again in so many different ways, the Prime Minister has been asked in the House about the role of Canadian ground troops in Iraq, about the engagement of Canadian ground troops in combat. Over and over again in the House, we were told that they would not be so engaged. By February it became clear. The answers provided by the government, by the Prime Minister himself, were not true.

Canadian soldiers providing ground support to air strikes exchanged fire with ISIL ground units. At least three such firefights were reported between the end of January and mid-February. Now we are being asked to approve a motion that “notes that the Government continues not to deploy troops in a ground combat role”. We know that not to be true. The government knows that not to be true. We have had ministers rise in the House to acknowledge the engagement of Canadian soldiers in ground combat. We have had the death of Sergeant Doiron to confirm this truth for us.

What it betrays is a government that is not just untrustworthy, but takes far too lightly its responsibilities, a government that falls far short of its responsibility to deal with this matter with the seriousness it deserves. It is not merely just about planting this strange clause about combat troops in the motion, the issue extends to the reference in the motion to UN Security Council resolution 2178. Its reference suggests that the resolution is somehow in support of this mission, that the United Nations Security Council resolution somehow confers support for this mission or legitimizes it. Resolution 2178 deals with the issue of the travel of terrorists and the financing of terrorism.

Moreover, on the matter of the conduct of the current government to date, and the proposed extension and expansion of this mission, it is difficult to read into the resolution anything other than contradiction to the motion in which it is embedded.

It recognizes, for instance, “...that international cooperation and any measures taken by Member States to prevent and combat terrorism must comply fully with the Charter of the United Nations”. It reaffirms respect for “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in accordance with the Charter”. It further reaffirms that:

Member States must ensure that any measures taken to counter terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, underscoring that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort and notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and noting that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity...

We have asked the Prime Minister and ministers of the Conservative government whether they have in fact complied with their legal obligations under international law. In response to that question from the leader of the official opposition, a question that arises straight from the text of the Security Council resolution embedded in their motion, the Prime Minister saw fit to crack on wise about ISIL lawyers. He said:

I am not sure what point the leader of the NDP is ultimately making. If he is suggesting that there is any significant legal risk of lawyers from ISIL taking the Government of Canada to court and winning, the Government of Canada's view is that the chances of that are negligible.

While he sends our Canadian Armed Forces around the world to stand up for the rule of law, while he cites in this motion the Security Council resolution reaffirming it, we have a Prime Minister who flouts the rule of law, who openly mocks it in our Parliament.

I have one final point about the text of the resolution as it relates to the motion. It tells us not only that compliance with international legal obligations is mandatory, but it explains why. It is the view of the Security Council, as reflected in this resolution, that compliance with international law complements and reinforces effective counter-terrorism measures, and that the converse is also true, that the failure to comply with international obligations, including under the charter of the United Nations is “...one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity”.

It is perhaps an obvious point that has not escaped the attention of so many analysts of these circumstances that it is in the context of tearing down state institutions and tearing asunder civil society that we provide fertile ground for radicalization. Surely we have witnessed this enough times that not hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground much less bombs from on high is the prescription for peaceful development and security.

Canada must respond differently from now on. We must accordingly say no to this main motion and support the motion as amended by the NDP.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may be quite correct that it takes political leadership and courage for the Conservative government to approve this motion. It is very easy to overreach in one's environmental proposals with a government like this that is at war with the environment. However, this should be a very easy thing to do. In fact, it is what one might call low-hanging fruit. Microbeads are entirely unnecessary in the products in which they are used, and there is ample evidence of the environmental degradation that flows from the use of these microplastics.

One would hope that because there is eminent sense to this, because these are unnecessary in the products in which they are used, that this should be a simple, practical thing we can accomplish in the House today.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, all plaudits to the 21 companies we have referenced in our speeches today, which have voluntarily taken action on this issue, recognizing the environmental degradation that flows from having microbeads, quite unnecessarily, as part of their personal care products, toothpastes, et cetera.

I think the motion today will encourage others, hopefully, to follow in our footsteps. However, most certainly it will even the playing field for companies that produce products that use microbeads presently so that in the future, no one in Canada will either carry or engage in the manufacture of products that include microbeads.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I would not have an issue with the federal government dealing directly with the provinces to bring about swifter action on this issue than might be available under the proposal here on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act but not to the exclusion of what we are proposing to do today, which is to have microbeads listed as toxins in the list under that act.

Clearly, as set out in that piece of legislation, the federal government has jurisdiction over this issue. It is an issue that crosses subnational jurisdictions and international boundaries. It is most appropriate for the federal government to take action on this issue and to respond under the processes set out under the existing legislation and to respond as swiftly as it can to deal with this issue.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to the motion that my NDP colleague, the member for Halifax, has put forward calling on the government to take immediate action to designate microbead plastics as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Such a designation would allow the federal government to regulate, phase out, or eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada. Certainly, federal government action needs to be taken on this issue.

The timing of this motion is particularly appropriate as we are just two days past World Water Day, a day set aside to recognize that clean water is essential to life. This ought to be obvious to all of us, and we ought to see this simple truth reflected in the way we govern—that is, through the conservation and protection of our water resources.

However, it is clearly not obvious to the Conservative government. It is clearly not reflected in the way it governs. The Conservative government has in fact dismantled Canada's environmental protection laws, allowing polluters to threaten our fresh water supply, with no regard for the cost this will impose on us and those who follow us.

Let me say proudly, at the outset of my comments on this particular motion, that the NDP believes that Canada needs a national water policy to secure the principle of water as a human right and as a public trust. We need comprehensive strategies to protect our water resources, mechanisms to monitor and assess the implementation of these plans, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that water is indeed protected.

This issue of protecting our water resources, and this motion before us specifically, is an issue of particular relevance to my riding of Beaches—East York. My riding sits on the shore of Lake Ontario, which is of course one of our Great Lakes. There are many threats to our Great Lakes, many things we must do to help preserve them. They represent, after all, 95% of North America's surface fresh water and 20% of the world's surface fresh water.

Let me take a moment to thank my NDP colleague, the member for Windsor West, who serves as our party's Great Lakes critic, for all his advocacy for the health of our Great Lakes and, by extension, for all of us who live in the Great Lakes basin.

The Great Lakes have a unique biodiversity and are home to more than 3,500 species of animals and plants. They have for centuries, and continue today, to sit at the heart of the North American economy, providing livelihoods and sustenance to millions.

It is the case that concentrations of microplastics in the Great Lakes, particularly downstream from major cities and in the sediments of the St. Lawrence River, rival the highest concentrations of microplastics collected from anywhere around the world.

There is reason for this, of course. More than 40 million people live on or near the shores of these lakes, and microbeads are small, manufactured plastic beads that are used in consumer products such as facial cleansers, shower gels, and toothpaste. These are products we use every day, oblivious to the environmental consequences of these beads they contain and the environmental damage that these beads cause when they make their way into our water systems, rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Microplastics are consumed by a variety of marine life, including fish harvested for human consumption. They can cause asphyxiation or blockage of organs in marine animals. Chemical pollutants tend to accumulate and persist on microplastics. Microplastics absorb water pollutants and toxins, including PCBs. When ingested by wildlife, the toxins bioaccumulate and become more concentrated as they move up our food chain.

The motion before us proposes to put microbeads on the toxic list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This would then allow the federal government to regulate, phase out, or eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada. Section 64 of the act defines a substance as toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that:

(i) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, (ii) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends, or (iii) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Clearly, microbeads meet this test.

Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health are responsible for developing a list of substances that must be assessed in a timely manner to determine if they are toxic or are capable of becoming toxic. This list is known as the priority substances list. The act requires that substances on this list be assessed within five years of their addition to the list. Environment Canada and Health Canada have a legal obligation to then determine if these substances are toxic as defined in section 64 of the act. Toxic is defined in terms of the risks these substances pose to the environment or to human health, as described earlier.

Around the world, this kind of action has already been taken or is under way. At least 21 companies and major corporations around the world that produce or carry cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads have made some level of commitment to eliminate or phase out microbeads in their products. Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, Lush cosmetics, and The Body Shop are all part of the initiative to get microbeads out of their products and out of our water systems.

Governments are responding as well. The Dutch parliament is promoting a European ban on microplastics in cosmetics. Just next door, in the United States, Illinois banned the production, manufacture, or sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads as recently as June 2014. State legislatures in California, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio are considering following suit. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a binational coalition of over 100 mayors, is calling on companies to phase out the use of microbeads by this year, 2015. The mayor of Thunder Bay and the chair of that initiative said:

The Cities Initiative calls on regulators and companies to do the right thing and get microplastics out of personal care products and out of the Great Lakes.

We hope for all-party support for this motion. I would acknowledge some positive noises from my colleagues across the way in their response to this motion. There is, of course, nothing in the history and conduct of the Conservative government to date to suggest that its prospects are good. This is a government at war with the environment, as evidenced by its degradation and/or elimination of legislation intended to protect and conserve our environment, most obviously, in this circumstance and context, the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is evidenced by an unrelenting assault on science-based government departments, which includes cuts of over $3 billion and 5,000 jobs from science-based departments, including scientific research positions and programs for monitoring air, water, and wildlife. It is evidenced by the government's unrelenting attack on Canadians and Canadian organizations that are active advocates for our environment through such initiatives as its Canada Revenue Agency audits on environmental NGOs and the inclusion of matters related to the environment and environmental infrastructure under Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act.

Finally, it is evidenced by the government's insistence that the economy and the environment stand in opposition to one another, as if the health, sustainability, conservation, and protection of our environment have nothing to do with the quality of our human life on this earth and on our standard of living. On this very topic, there is the historical reluctance to deal with this issue, and indeed, there is the denial of the issue by the Minister of the Environment, who, in response to a letter from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, suggested that this is a waste management and disposal issue that should be referred to the provinces.

However, we live in hope. Canadians live in hope of swift action on this issue so that the issue of microbeads can be dealt with for the benefit of our environment and all life that shares in that environment and depends on it for its survival.

[Rail Transportation, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the latest series of train derailments has communities across the country concerned for their safety. The transport committee report is clear. We have inadequate rail inspection. The Auditor General's report is clear. We have inadequate rail inspection.

While the transport of oil by rail has grown exponentially, Transport Canada has hired just one additional rail inspector since 2013. Does the minister think that is sufficient to protect Canadians? Is this what the minister calls working diligently to protect the safety of Canadians?

[Transportation Safety, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen three train wrecks in less than a month, tank cars exploding, oil spilling, damaging our environment and endangering lives.

The minister's response in the House yesterday was, “We need to wait and see”. Surely the minister has seen these, the main estimates, showing cuts of 43% from the strategic infrastructure fund and $40 million from Transport Canada.

Is this what the minister calls working diligently to protect the safety of Canadians, slashing funds from transportation infrastructure?