House of Commons Hansard #188 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about water purification systems and municipal waste water systems.

Over the course of my reading on the cycle of microbeads, I learned that purification and filtration systems are often unable to filter out microbeads because they are too small. This means that they remain in our marine systems.

As for the potential upgrades to purification systems, no one was convinced that it would be possible to develop systems effective enough to keep microbeads out. Reducing them at the source is the most effective method.

Does my colleague agree that, in light of the significant costs and the time associated with upgrading purification systems, the most effective strategy is to reduce microbeads at the source?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, we all realize that sometimes prevention is the best medicine. My colleague from Halifax was quite correct when she stated that the industry is already taking quite substantial voluntary measures to reduce microbeads in their products. There has been research and work done on including more natural substances, such as using sugar or salt as facial scrubs, using baking soda for polishing teeth, and things along those lines, because prevention is the best medicine.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on today's motion. As we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, it is something that we believe is important for prioritizing in future reviews.

Our government is committed to ensuring we protect the environment so that all Canadians will have clean air, water, and land and so that these gifts will remain available for their children long into the future. We take our responsibilities as stewards of these natural resources very seriously, and we take a careful, science-based approach when it comes to the rules and regulations that oversee them.

There is no difference when it comes to the regulation of the cosmetic industry. Manufacturers are required to meet strong standards when it comes to assessing any health or safety risks of these products, and they are given a thorough review.

My colleague discussed the chemicals management plan in some depth. I would like to add to the debate in terms of Health Canada's role in regulating the cosmetic industry.

The Government of Canada has some of the most stringent regulations for cosmetics in the world. Our government restricts or prohibits the use of substances that may cause harm to Canadians, and we respond to emerging issues with a risk-based approach. When necessary, we act with targeted enforcement and make regulatory changes as needed.

Health Canada takes this risk-based approach very seriously in regulating cosmetics and other consumer products. That means that the department considers both the properties of the substance in products as well as the amount that Canadians are exposed to under normal conditions of use to determine whether there is a risk that needs to be addressed.

The motion before us today has raised the question that microbeads and consumer products could have serious harmful effects and proposes that the government take measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

In cosmetics and personal care products, microbeads are made of plastics like polyethylene, polypropylene, and nylon. These substances also have many other known uses in cosmetics, such as acting as binding and bulking agents, stabilizers, film formers, and skin conditioning agents.

All cosmetics sold in Canada must be safe to use and must meet the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the Cosmetic Regulations. A key requirement of the Cosmetic Regulations is that manufacturers or importers must notify Health Canada within 10 days of the first sale of the product, and the notification must include information about the product's formulation.

The Cosmetic Regulations also require manufacturers or importers to disclose all ingredients on the product label, using the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients name. This requirement allows consumers to check for possible ingredients to which they may be sensitive or that they choose to avoid, thereby allowing for more informed decisions regarding product purchase and use. This requirement also helps the department review the product's ingredients for harmful substances. This is the same naming convention used in the European Union and in the United States.

In addition, the labels of approved personal care products include the product's recommended use or purpose, which may include health claims, dosage information, medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients, and any warnings or cautions associated with the product.

Health Canada takes into consideration each of these factors when considering the impact on human health. Presently, none of the plastic substances that commonly make up microbeads have raised human safety concerns as currently used in cosmetics. Canadians can rest assured that if any concerns for human health are identified, Health Canada will take the appropriate action.

The ingredients used to make microbeads are considered non-medicinal and will be listed on the product's label. This requirement ensures that Canadian consumers are able to make informed decisions about the personal care products they purchase and use them in the appropriate manner.

Health Canada also has a cosmetic ingredient hot list, which is an administrative tool used to communicate to manufacturers and others that certain substances, when present in a cosmetic, may contravene the general prohibition found in section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act or a provision of the Cosmetic Regulations.

Departmental officials closely follow international scientific and regulatory reports and regularly review the safety of cosmetic ingredients. As well, stakeholders are welcome to submit proposed changes to the hot list to Health Canada.

As I said from the outset, we take the environmental health of Canadians very seriously. For this reason, in 2006 the government launched the chemicals management plan to strengthen efforts to protect human health and the environment from the risk of chemicals.

This chemicals management plan is a world-leading approach to chemical management that has been widely endorsed by industry and non-governmental organizations alike. It is a joint program between Environment Canada and Health Canada. We heard earlier how many chemicals have been assessed over the last number of years, and it is certainly an extraordinary number.

Some of the chemicals that are used to make microbeads are among the chemicals to be assessed in the future under the chemicals management plan, and if concerns are identified, Health Canada will take action.

The reviews that have taken place under this plan are not just an academic exercise. This process is providing real results for Canadians and is resulting in strong action against problem chemicals when they are identified.

To date, the plan has resulted in 26 new substances being added to the cosmetic ingredient hot list. In addition, two existing hot list items have been amended to provide more protection for the health of Canadians.

In our budget of 2011, the government made sure that the management of chemicals was a top priority. The chemicals management plan received more than $506 million in additional funding over the next five years, so I think it is very clear that we do take the health and safety of Canadians seriously. The importance of consumer product safety is something that we all share. Under the chemicals management plan, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Cosmetic Regulations, the government addresses such issues as microbeads in cosmetics. If emerging science shows a risk to human health, the government will act swiftly.

In conclusion, I think we have good systems in place. We have science that continues to emerge, and what we need to do is respond to the scientific evidence.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I heard what my Conservative colleagues said. If I am not mistaken, they are going to support the motion. However, there is one thing that concerns me. How is it that, since microbeads arrived in Canada, the federal government—regardless of which department is responsible for approving this sort of product, whether it be Health Canada or Environment Canada—has never looked at the toxic risk microbeads pose to people's health and the impact they have on the environment?

I understand that these products are sold everywhere in the world and that this problem is not exclusive to Canada. However, I would like to know what process the Government of Canada used in the past to approve the use of these microbeads, which are found in products sold to Canadians and are being released into Canada's environment.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there are two things. Our government is very proud of the chemicals management plan that we have in place. There is also the process with Health Canada and the cosmetic industry.

We have indicated that these products are not actually creating harm to human health, but we have heard that there is concern over the plastic going into the environment. We are going to prioritize this issue and do a scientific assessment to determine the best route forward.

We have put extraordinary resources, energy, and effort into the chemicals management plan, and it is certainly having very important and significant effects.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the hon. member's speech. While I understand that the government seems to be approaching this issue from a consumer protection point of view, we on this side of the House believe that it needs to be approached on a broader level.

It is quite clear that microbeads are accumulating in our waterways. They are finding their way into plant and animal life. There is no question that these microbeads are having a serious toxic impact on our environment.

Would my hon. colleague agree with me that we need to act quickly, on a precautionary principle basis, to stop the further contamination of our waterways and environment with these microbeads while, as she points out, the government evaluates their safety, or does she think we should wait until there are demonstrable impacts on human health before the government acts?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is important to indicate that there are not demonstrable effects on human health. We will prioritize this issue and make a science-based assessment in terms of the environment. The New Democrats need to take yes for an answer in terms of the need to look at this issue in regard to the impact on the environment, but it is also important for Canadians to hear that these ingredients are not causing a harmful effect when they currently use them in their cosmetics.

We have two things here. One is they are being used and are not creating a harmful effect on humans, but we do need to prioritize and have a look at them and make a decision based on science.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to learn that the government is going to support our motion.

I think that my hon. colleague opposite understands that we are not saying that these plastic microbeads are dangerous if used on one's skin.

However, would she agree that we do not let people throw their plastic bags or any other garbage made of plastic into our waterways and that we should do exactly the same thing for all types of plastic waste, which, as we know, pollutes our environment and is dangerous for our ecosystems?

Does she also agree that we should act as quickly as possible to ban all types of plastic from our waterways, as we do with plastic bags and other plastic waste?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to note is that there was some conversation around the absorption of microbeads and how they can absorb some chemicals.

One of the most important things that a government can do, should do, and is doing through our chemicals management plan is assessing and reducing in general any chemicals that are harmful to humans or to the environment. That is absolutely the most critical thing that the government can be focused on, and is focused on, in terms of chemicals in our environment.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about microbeads or small plastic beads in consumer products, which enter our environment and can have serious harmful effects.

The United Nations Environment Programme looked at plastic waste in the ocean in 2011. Since then, concern has grown over microplastics, particles up to five millimetres in diameter, either manufactured or created when plastic breaks down. Fish, mussels, seabirds and sea plankton ingest microplastics and that is harmful.

A growing concern is the increasing use of microplastics in consumer products, namely microbeads in facial cleansers, gels and toothpaste, which are released into rivers, lakes and the oceans. Microbes have been discovered on microplastics at multiple locations in the North Atlantic. This so-called plastisphere can help the transport of harmful algae species, microbes and pathogens. Microplastics are also a threat to larger organisms such as the endangered northern right whale.

Closer to home, scientists have found millions of these microbeads in just one square kilometre of parts of our Great Lakes as a result of a number of companies adding them to their consumer products. Sometimes microbeads are used to help exfoliate the skin. Other times they are added to products to make them sparkle.

Research by the Institute for Environmental Studies found that a 200-millilitre bottle contained as much as 21 grams of microplastics, or roughly one-tenth of its weight. Microbeads are commonly made of polyethylene or polypropylene and they range in size from .0004 to 1.24 millimetres, making them too small to be filtered out by wastewater treatment plants. As a result, these tiny beads pass through our wastewater treatment filters and end up in our lakes and rivers.

These beads are often buoyant and can soak up toxins like a sponge. Since they resemble the size of fish eggs, environmentalists are concerned that the microplastics are making their way into the food chain via fish, birds and mammals. Scientists have recently raised alarm, warning that microbeads might have harmful effects on human health. For example, some evidence suggests that microbeads can absorb persistent organic pollutants.

Research spanning all five Great Lakes was undertaken in 2012 and 2013. Unlike in the ocean where the researchers found “confetti-like” bits of degraded plastic up to five millimetres in size, the researchers trawling the Great Lakes found large amounts of really tiny plastic fragments and beads up to one millimetre. As they followed the flow of the water through the Great Lakes, the plastic count increased. The highest concentration was found in Lake Ontario with counts of up to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre.

There is increasing momentum in the United States to get microbeads out of products. Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass legislation that would outright ban the sale of personal care products that contain microbeads by the end of 2019. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn said:

Banning microbeads will help ensure clean waters across Illinois and set an example for our nation to follow. Lake Michigan and the many rivers and lakes across our state are among our most important natural resources.

Chemist Sherri Mason, an associate professor at the State University of New York, who conducted the first study that found microbeads floating in the Great Lakes, said that while she is glad to see Illinois leading the way, she is troubled by the far-off deadline. She said, “The later date means more microbeads are going down the drain before we're really taking the measures that need to be taken”.

Just this week, Governor Chris Christie signed legislation, making New Jersey the second state in the United States to ban the substances. The law prohibits the manufacturing, sale and promotion in the state of any personal care product with microbeads made from polyethylene.

Senator Christopher Bateman said:

By signing this bill into law, we are placing our state at the forefront of a national effort to eliminate the dangers this product poses to our environment and our water supply.... The only way to keep our drinking water safe and protect our beautiful rivers and lakes is to stop production and get these items off the shelves.

The law would be phased in, beginning with a ban on the production of products containing microbeads in January 2018. By January 2020, people would be prohibited from selling or promoting over-the-counter products containing the substances.

According to Environmental Defence, “A ban is looking promising in Indiana and lawmakers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Maine, California, New York, Ohio and Washington State have also considered, or are considering, new laws banning the beads”.

To reiterate, in the United States, two states, Illinois and New Jersey, have passed laws banning the use of microbeads in personal care products. Nine other states are considering similar measures. In Canada, a private member's bill to ban microbeads has been introduced in Ontario's legislature, but neither the federal government nor the other provinces have taken similar action.

In addition to legislative action, the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a coalition of Canadian and U.S. mayors from 114 cities along the water bodies, has raised awareness about the microbead problem within their communities and pushed companies to eliminate them from their products. “We think we've done a pretty good job”, said executive director David Ullrich, though he acknowledges, “there is always more that the initiative could be doing”.

CBC reported in June 2014 that a number of personal care product manufacturers have promised to cut microbeads from their products in the coming years, but dates vary.

In January 2015, Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and the Netherlands issued a joint call to ban the microplastics used in personal care products, saying the measure will protect marine ecosystems and seafood, such as mussels, from contamination. The joint statement was forwarded to the European Union's 28 environment ministers and stated that the elimination of microplastics in products and, in particular, in cosmetics “is of utmost priority”.

According to UNEP:

Although it is evident that alternatives to microplastics are available, hundreds of tons of microplastics are still being released onto the EU market each year. The Netherlands is particularly worried because of concerns that seafood--including its national production of mussels--could suffer from micro-plastic pollution.

“There is a still a large degree of uncertainty but what we already know gives us cause for concern,” the Netherlands state in its call for action. “In this case, the precautionary principle applies.”

Governments from around the world present at the first UN Environment Assembly adopted a resolution on marine plastic debris and microplastics. They called for strengthened action, in particular by addressing such materials at the source and requested UNEP to present scientific assessments on microplastics for consideration by the next session of the Assembly.

UNEP through the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) is also supporting initiatives such as the “Beat the Microbead”--a phone application that allows consumers to quickly identify personal care products containing microbeads--in its efforts to reduce influx of waste in the marine environment.

Concern is growing over the threat that widespread plastic waste poses to marine life, with conservative estimates of the overall financial damage of plastics to marine ecosystems standing at U.S. $13 billion each year.

The UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director said:

Plastics have come to play a crucial role in modern life, but the environmental impacts of the way we use them cannot be ignored. These reports show that reducing, recycling and redesigning products that use plastics can bring multiple green economy benefits--from reducing economic damage to marine ecosystems and the tourism and fisheries industries, vital for many developing countries, to bringing savings and opportunities for innovation to companies while reducing reputational risks.

...in the polar regions, scientists have recently found tiny pieces of plastic trapped in sea ice. Transported by ocean currents across great distances, these contaminated particles eventually become a source of chemicals in our food. The key course of action is to prevent plastic debris from entering the environment in the first place, which translates into a single, powerful objective: reduce, reuse, recycle.

There have been many reliable reports of environmental damage due to plastic waste: illness or death when ingested by sea creatures such as turtles; entanglement of animals such as dolphins and whales; and damage to critical habitat such as coral reefs. There are also concerns about chemical contamination, invasive species spread by plastic fragments and economic damage to the fishery, fishing and tourism industries in many countries.

What recommendations have been put forth to address this issue?

Companies should monitor their plastic use and publish the results in annual reports. Companies could commit to reducing the environmental impact of plastics through clear targets and deadlines, and innovate to increase resource efficiency and recycling. There should be an increased focus on awareness campaigns to discourage littering and prevent plastic waste from reaching the ocean. There should be an application that allows consumers to check whether a product contains microbeads. This is already available and is expanding its coverage internationally.

This is a motion that the NDP brought forward. We heard today that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is asking people to support this motion. It is important.

Since plastic particles can be ingested by marine organisms and potentially accumulate and deliver toxins through the food web, efforts should be stepped up to fill the knowledge gap.

These beads are affecting our water. The plastics absorb dangerous chemicals and are ingested by fish and other wildlife, causing DNA damage and even death. The link between the problem and the cause is clear. The beads found in the Great Lakes were tested and were found to have come from products like body wash, facial cleansers and toothpaste.

Microbeads is an important issue and this is an important debate. It is really positive to see this Parliament coming together and recognizing this problem. We have not always agreed when it comes to the environment. The government does not have a positive record when it comes to the environment.

The 2008 Climate Change Performance Index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009 and again in 2013, The Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrial nations on environmental performance.

In 2010, Simon Fraser University ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance. It is important that we are coming together and that everyone is saying that microbeads are an important issue.

The government also gutted environmental legislation of the last 50 years through economic plans 2012 and 2013, and Bills C-38 and C-45. It severely cut the budget to Environment Canada and cancelled the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Government scientists have been muzzled. The government's environmental policies have been criticized by policymakers, scientists, Canadians and the international community, and repeatedly by the prestigious international journal, Nature.

Water is the foundation of life, and it is essential for socio-economic systems and healthy ecosystems. The World Bank states that “Water is at the center of economic and social development” and is elemental across economic sectors, including agriculture, energy and industry. The government stripped federal oversight from thousands of Canadian waterways through Bill C-45 and reduced the protection of thousands of Canadian lakes.

Going forward, Canada needs a national water strategy, and our country is well placed to become a global leader in water. For example, the Canadian Water Network, a national network of centres of excellence, can address practical challenges to be a source of new start-up companies and train the next generation of researchers and skilled workers.

Canada also has a relatively high level of water infrastructure regulation and water management systems. The most recent Conference Board of Canada report on the environment ranks Canada 4th of 17 peer countries in water quality. Canada also has a growing number of competitive water companies providing goods and services to world markets.

I thank the NDP for bringing this forward. I thank the parliamentary secretary for asking everyone to support this motion. I also hope the government will work to protect Canada's coastline, establish a network of marine protected areas in Canada's waters, encourage the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources, prioritize clean water, restore our freshwater ecosystems, work to clean up contaminated sediment, and protect and restore essential habitats.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important point, which is the cuts to the federal department of environment. While we are all here in this place, surprised in welcoming that the government appears to support this motion to take action on these beads, which can cause harm to the environment, it raises the question of the tens of thousands of toxins that have yet to be added to the list, let alone regulated. I include industrial mercury, which, to its credit, the Alberta government has regulated to require capture in the coal-fired power industry. Canada still has not.

Could she speak to the urgency of the issue and the capacity to possibly fast-track this through, given the fact that we already have a lot of documented evidence? Clearly, Europe is moving forward and some of the United States. We already have the Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue that could serve as one mechanism we could use to move this matter forward more expeditiously.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work on the environment over decades. She raises important points. There have been large cuts to Environment Canada. We need our scientists, and we need them to freely speak.

I used to consult for Environment Canada. It is heartbreaking when I return to a building that used to be filled with scientists, but where there are now empty floors, and I can name the building. It is sad when scientists cannot speak freely about their findings.

We need to base any policies on good, scientific evidence. We need the science. We need scientists to speak freely. As my colleague says, the U.S. is moving forward. Legislation was passed yesterday. Europe is moving forward. This is an important motion and we need to support it.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke North for her support of this motion. However, I would like to make a clarification and then ask a question.

The member talked about a number of states in the United States of America that had taken action on this. I want to clarify that in fact only one, the state of Illinois, has taken action although many other states are considering doing so. Similar legislation is being discussed in Ohio, New York, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Jersey, but none of these states have yet put in place legally binding controls or prohibitions.

Would the member for Etobicoke North, and my friend from the environment committee for a number of years, agree that Canada should continue to collaborate with the one state that has legislated on the issue, Illinois, as well as the others that, like Canada, are considering such legislation?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way and I had a good working relationship on the environment committee.

When I was writing this speech late last night, in the wee hours of the morning, I found out that Governor Chris Christie had passed legislation on microbeads yesterday. It is important that we always work with scientists from the United States and from around the world.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is amazing. I know the environment file in general concerns her very much.

I am a bit worried because the two parliamentary secretaries who spoke earlier talked about health effects on humans as being a de facto condition of a substance being written down in Canadian law for the protection of the environment. However, article 64 says that the risk can be posed to the environment or to human health.

I am not sure if the government members understand that these are not two conditions that have to be met together, but that they are different conditions. It is either a health condition on human beings or on human health in general, or environmental risks. Would my colleague comment on that?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in the precautionary principle. We take action when there is evidence that something may be harmful.

The Liberal Party has consistently promoted policies aimed at protecting Canada's waterways. As I have said repeatedly, we will support this motion.

Environment and industry experts agree that microbeads must be phased out of use. A similar ban in the U.S. received bipartisan support and an Ontario Liberal member of the provincial legislature introduced a bill on March 9 to phase out microbeads. In 2011, the Liberal Party pledged to introduce a Canadian freshwater strategy that would address pollution in the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, the St. Lawrence River and other major bodies of water. In 2012, the party made the creation of a national water policy a priority resolution for our party.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

My speech on microbeads, small pieces of plastics found in consumer products like facial cleaners, shower gels and toothpastes, begins in the year 1997, 18 years ago, in the waters off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. An incident came to mind the instant I heard of this opposition day motion, outlining how microbeads could have serious health impacts and calling on the government to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the federal government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The year 1997 was the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland, and a great year in the history of the world it was, Newfoundland and Labrador being the God's country that it is. To mark the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's historic voyage from Bristol, England to Bonavista, Newfoundland, a recreation of the Cabot's ship, The Matthew, was built and sailed from Bristol to Bonavista.

I was in Bristol back then as a young journalist covering the launch of The Matthew for The Telegram, the daily newspaper in St. John's, Newfoundland. Hundreds of thousands of people watched The Matthew sail down the River Avon, and what a sight it was. Thousands more people were in Bonavista, Newfoundland weeks later, including the Queen of England, when The Matthew sailed into Bonavista. It was a grey and foggy day, just like the great Newfoundland song Grey Foggy Day.

Once The Matthew arrived in Newfoundland, over a period of several more weeks she proceeded to circumnavigate the island of Newfoundland. Every day Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, from secretaries to plumbers, lawyers to businessmen and reporters to politicians, took overnight trips on The Matthew from one leg to the next, one community to the next.

I sailed on The Matthew on the first overnight leg from Bonavista to nearby Grates Cove. That memory will always be with me. The Matthew was a wooden caravel, 78-feet long, weighing 50 tonnes, and she bobbed in the North Atlantic like a cork in a bottle.

It was nasty weather. Old-timers called that kind of weather a “capelin squall”, a mixture of bone-chilling winds, rain and fog that typically hammers the Newfoundland coast in late June just as the capelin are coming inshore to spawn. I took my turn at the wheel, and I was on the deck of The Matthew the next morning when the sun rose and finally started to bum the fog to shreds. The very first thing I saw in the waters off Grates Cove was a plastic shopping bag. I will never forget it. I can say with certainty that John Cabot did not see a plastic shopping bag floating in the ocean. As legend has it, he was too busy dropping buckets over the side of The Matthew, pulling in cod.

On a side note, there is a news story out today about how it may be another 10 years before the moratorium on northern cod is lifted, cod like John Cabot caught in buckets. By then, the ban on commercial fishing on northern cod, which was first brought down in 1992, will have lasted 33 years. As a Newfoundland and Labrador MP, I make it a point at every opportunity to hammer home to the government and the third party in the House that it will have been 33 years since the greatest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador failed as a result of complete mismanagement.

My apologies for yesterday during question period in this House when I lost it in my seat after a Conservative MP, the MP for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, said that his government's management decisions are “always based on science”. My apologies for reacting to such a ridiculous statement. I should be used to such ridiculous statements. It is the fire in my belly. I apologize for that. Under the Conservative government, scientists are known more for being muzzled than anything else.

Let us get back to plastics. As I said at the start, microbeads are small, manufactured pieces of plastic used in consumer products, as has been pointed out, like facial cleansers, shower gels, and toothpaste. Microbeads have been found in high concentrations in the Great Lakes. If they are found there, in the Great Lakes, one can bet a bushel of plastic bags that they are found in the North Atlantic, in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, in the waters off the east coast, in the waters off the Maritimes.

There is a bid by Memorial University, the university in Newfoundland and Labrador, to study ocean plastics waste and codfish consumption in Newfoundland to see if there is a correlation between microbeads and the codfish we consume. Let us hope that the study actually goes through.

New Democrats, my party, believe that the best way to deal with pollution is to prevent pollution in the first place. It is hard to argue with that.

Microbeads were first patented for use as cleaners in 1972, but it was not until the 1960s that manufacturers started using them to replace more natural materials, such as almonds, oatmeal, and sea salt.

Alternatives to microbeads do exist. Because of that, they are not considered an essential ingredient in cosmetics and personal care products. If microbeads are not essential, and if they are known to cause harm to fish and other wildlife, are known to cause asphyxiation or the blockage of organs in marine mammals, and are found in fish that is eaten by people, why are we allowing microbeads?

Have we not learned yet that we put people first? We put people first by putting the environment first. Have we not learned that we put people first by preventing pollution in the first place?

In recent years, a $171-million sewage treatment plant has been built in St. John's, in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. However, waste water treatment plants like the Riverhead treatment plant, again in my riding, are not able to filter out microbeads, because microbeads are too small, and they are buoyant.

There are hundreds of communities around Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have sewage treatment plants. Hundreds. Upgrading the $171-million treatment plant in St. John's would cost tens of millions of dollars more. Where would that money come from?

There are no known ways to effectively remove microbeads, microplastics, after they make their way into the environment.

What do we want? What do New Democrats want with regard to microbeads? We want the government to take immediate action to designate microbead plastics toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That would allow the Government of Canada to regulate, phase out, and eliminate the use of microbeads used or produced in Canada. Already, as has been pointed out, two states in the United States have banned the use of microbeads in personal care products. Countries around the world are doing the same. Here at home, a private member's bill has been introduced in Ontario. However, we need federal regulation, one law for all provinces and territories.

What do New Democrats want? We want a clean environment. We want healthy fish. We want healthy people. New Democrats want a level playing field for all businesses that manufacture products containing microbeads.

What do I want as a member of Parliament for Newfoundland and Labrador, for St. John's South—Mount Pearl? Number one, I would like the fish to come back. I wish the fish had come back two years after the moratorium, as John Crosbie predicted. I would like that to happen, but it is not predicted for another 10 years. That is what I want.

An equally important wish is for the Conservatives, the Government of Canada, to become better stewards of the environment. More and more, the Conservative government is failing the environment.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, these microbeads, which absorb toxic substances, could have a negative impact on the health of consumers since they are found in fish and other marine animals, which are then eaten by people,

I would like the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl to tell me how many people in his riding eat fish and marine animals that live in our environment and could therefore be affected by the chemicals transported by these plastic microbeads in the food chain.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. What is the percentage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who eat fish? I will answer simply this way: all of them. I know that the MP for St. John's East and his family eat fish.

As I mentioned in my speech, Memorial University is looking at doing a study on the impact of microbeads on the environment and in terms of our recreational cod fishery, which happens twice a year in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Newfoundland and Labrador recreational cod fishery is more limited than it is in the maritimes. I do not necessarily agree, but the reason it is more limited is that we have more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who fish cod and eat cod.

To sum up, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians love their fish.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from my colleague from the NDP on pollution and the environment and the responsibility we have as a chamber to deal effectively with that. However, I have one question, and it is not a simple one.

The member was saying that he looks forward to the cod coming back, as we all do in Atlantic Canada. I also expect that the hon. member knows the relationship cod has with shrimp. It is the main predator for shrimp and shellfish. Does the member realize that when cod comes back, the shrimp fishery will not be the fishery it is today?

The reason the shrimp fishery is failing now, besides a bit of overfishing, is that cod is on the way back.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, although I had no idea that the hon. member was a scientist. I had no idea that he had studied the ecosystem of the North Atlantic and the relationship between cod and shrimp. It is good news. I am on the House of Commons committee on fisheries and oceans, and I must consult with the member more often on scientific questions.

In terms of the decline in the northern shrimp stock, we were under the assumption that northern shrimp was on the decline, but there has been news of late that the shrimp quota this year will not be cut. The reason it will not be cut is that the shrimp stock is in better shape than we thought. The problem is that apparently there is fresh and better science, but the current Conservative government will not release that science.

In terms of getting the information from scientists, they are muzzled by the current Conservative government. Dozens and dozens of scientists have signed papers to that effect calling on the government to lift the muzzling of scientists. We would love to speak to scientists more about the ecosystem and the relationship between different species of fish in the North Atlantic, but we cannot speak to scientists, because they cannot speak freely.

If the member has the ego, the audacity, to assume that he understands the relationship between cod, the ecosystem, and shrimp, he does not have a clue.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to support the NDP motion moved by my colleague from Halifax, who, I might add, is doing an excellent job as our environment critic. It is important to talk about this issue in the House today because it affects us all, especially future generations. It is time to move motions for the environment, before it is too late. Today's motion is a step in that direction, and I will read it now:

That, in the opinion of the House, microbeads in consumer products entering the environment could have serious harmful effects, and therefore the government should take immediate measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Basically, this motion calls on the federal government to take the necessary steps to classify microbeads as a toxic substance. This would allow the federal government to regulate, phase out or eliminate microbeads altogether from products used or manufactured in Canada. This simple measure would be easy to introduce. It would contribute further to preserving marine life as well as Canada's natural heritage.

Many people may be wondering what exactly microbeads are. They are tiny, round plastic particles used in the manufacture of a number of household and personal care products, including face and body washes and exfoliating scrubs.

Unfortunately, waste water treatment plants are not currently equipped with the filters needed to trap plastic microbeads. Part of the reason is that microbeads are too small, so they manage to pass through the filters and end up in the treated water from these treatment plants and in the environment.

In fact, high concentrations of microbeads have been discovered in marine environments across Canada, including in the Great Lakes, especially downstream from large cities, and in the sediments at the bottom of the St. Lawrence. Once these particles are released into our waters, they are ingested by aquatic species and therefore become an integral part of the food chain, including the human food chain. As my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, we eat a lot of fish in Canada.

Scientists and researchers around the world agree that plastic microbeads are harmful and a significant source of pollution. François Galgani, a researcher at the Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer, a French ocean research institute, said:

Sometimes microbeads are dispersed by the currents and travel thousands of kilometres from where they were discharged, thereby acting as a vector carrying microbes from one side of the planet to another, with the risk of disrupting the balance of natural environments by introducing pathogens to the local fauna and flora.

Internationally, a number of U.S. states, including Illinois, California, and New York, have already banned cosmetics containing microbeads from being marketed, or have anti-microbead legislation. What is more, the Dutch parliament is proposing to ban microplastics from beauty products throughout Europe.

Currently, at least 21 global companies that manufacture or produce beauty or personal care products are committed to reducing their plastic footprint by gradually eliminating microbeads from their products or choosing to no longer offer products containing microbeads.

In Canada, more and more groups, such as Environmental Defence Canada, are denouncing the disastrous environmental impact of these microbeads and are urging the federal government to ban these microbeads from consumer products.

The NDP takes the risks associated with microbeads very seriously. Canadian consumers and companies want to protect the environment from the harmful effects of microbeads. However, it is hard to do so without regulations that cover all the provinces and territories.

The NDP thinks the best way to eradicate the pollution caused by microbeads is to prevent it in the first place. Given that it would be expensive to upgrade waste water treatment plants and that there is no known way to effectively remove microplastics once they are in the environment, the NDP thinks the simplest and most effective solution to this problem is to prevent these particles from entering the environment.

Personally, I do not use many beauty products, but I have a very good exfoliant that contains sugar instead of microbeads. There are ingredients that can be used instead of microbeads. As an environmental precaution, many companies have opted not to use microbeads in their products. This solution is simple and cheap for manufacturers that currently use microbeads. There are alternatives available. As I said earlier, this would be much easier to enforce if there were regulations in place.

Canada must join with leading jurisdictions around the world and work toward eliminating microbeads from the products we use every day for the sake of public health and for the preservation of our environment. In that regard, New Democrats believe in protecting the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, and all of our lakes and rivers from unnecessary pollution. We will take the action necessary to prevent it.

Since the beginning of my mandate, I have been personally involved in a number of environmental protection groups that are working very hard to promote an environmentally friendly, healthy and balanced approach. Today I would like to salute the teachers who have dedicated time and energy to instill good civic duty values in their students. I even had the pleasure of participating in a number of Lac Saint-Louis shoreline cleanup and remediation campaigns in Lachine and Dorval. The lake is full of garbage. Last year I worked alongside volunteers and high school students from the region, including students from école Saint-Louis. I know how important it is for young people to grow up in a green world. We need to take steps in that direction today.

I would also like to highlight the important work done by GRAME, the Groupe de recherche appliquée en macroécologie. This organization is based in Lachine and is celebrating its 26th anniversary this week. Happy anniversary. It promotes sustainable development and environmental protection, with a focus on long-term global issues and climate change. At the same time it promotes renewable energy, sustainable transportation, energy efficiency and the use of economic incentives for environmental management.

I have a constructive professional relationship with GRAME, which over the years has demonstrated remarkable ingenuity in this area. I would like to thank its director, Jonathan Théorêt, and also all its employees and all the community volunteers, who are outstanding and are truly improving our environment and our community.

The NDP wants to work with such groups to develop an environmentally friendly and sustainable way to meet the pollution challenges all around us, now and also in the future. In terms of the environment, we must act now in order to generate long-term effects. The NDP believes that it is time to properly address this issue by stopping the pollution of the marine environment by microplastics.

Experts have clearly established that microbeads contain harmful substances and therefore represent a threat to the environment. This motion, moved today by my colleague, seeks to draw the government's attention to this problem that affects us all. These NDP proposals will help improve the quality of the environment and contribute to sustainable development in Canada.

To sum up, what we want is simple and quite reasonable, in my opinion.

We want a clean and healthy environment. We want to ensure the continuation of the recreational fishery and the safety of fish and other aquatic species. To achieve this, we want to eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada and we want to level the playing field for all businesses that manufacture products containing microbeads to ensure that those who switch to safer alternatives are not at a competitive disadvantage.

Broadly speaking, we want the federal government to assume its responsibilities. Canadians need and deserve a government that listens to their concerns, a government that puts their interests first and best understands their needs, but most importantly, a government that is sincere about seeking to bring about real change. That is exactly what the NDP is bringing to the table. An NDP government will deliver on its promises.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation of my colleague and I would like a point of clarification. The member mentioned that California and New York banned microbeads. Is she sure about that?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, we get notes for our speeches.

The notes said that Illinois banned the manufacturing and sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads in June 2014. California, Minnesota, New York and Ohio are looking into similar regulations. I apologize if my speech was not clear.

Four major states—California, Minnesota, New York and Ohio—are currently looking into similar regulations. They are states that care about the environment and want to go ahead and eliminate microbeads.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is true that these issues are very important.

The member mentioned the organization GRAME in her speech. In my riding we have the Centre d'information en environnement de Longueuil, Ciel et Terre, which looks out for our waterways. What my colleague talked about today was very practical. We regularly use products that end up in the sediments in our waterways and in the food of our marine wildlife. I also heard that the beads in question heat up differently in sunlight. That would even change how eggs grow and are laid, which affects the development of our wildlife.

This seems promising. Everyone seems to want to come to an agreement on this important issue. Is it realistic to think that Canada could potentially play a key role in setting international standards?