Debates of March 24th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I already said, some states already have legislation. In Europe, there is pressure for the eurozone to introduce legislation in this regard. My colleague is quite right in wondering whether Canada could be an environmental leader for once, because Canada did have a rather good environmental record in the past. However, since the Conservatives took office in 2006, scientists have been muzzled and cannot give us accurate information, because when the government does not like what it is hearing, it refuses to let them speak. The government did away with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It eliminated funding for the Canadian Environmental Network. I could go on.

As my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher said, people seem to want to agree on this because it is such an important and alarming issue. Microbeads that are ingested by fish enter our food chain. I think it is important to ask the government to add these microbeads to the list of toxic substances. I would be proud if Canada were to become the first country to do this and could influence other countries. I would be proud if we could have a positive impact as a government.

As I mentioned, there are alternatives. Whether it be sugar, salt, ground almonds or oatmeal, there are many environmentally friendly alternatives that could be used in these products. It would cost less than changing our water treatment system. This is simply a matter of dealing with the problem at the source because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What we are proposing today is reasonable and it is a good long-term vision for our environment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak for the government today, a government that takes very seriously the protection of Canadians and our environment. Let me begin by saying I will be splitting my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I would like to begin by clarifying exactly what microbeads are. They are a subset of microplastics. They fall under the category of primary microplastics and are minuscule round plastic beads less than one millimetre in size. They are widely used, as we have heard this morning, in personal care products such as skin care products and cosmetics. There are also secondary microplastics, which are tiny plastic fragments up to five millimetres in size that result from the breakdown of larger plastic debris.

Rather than focusing solely on the subset issue of microbeads, I would like to speak today to the broader challenge of microplastics. This is an emerging issue on which Canada, in concert with our provincial, territorial, international, and industry colleagues, is starting to make important progress.

When it comes to microplastics, as with most environmental concerns, the bottom line is that we all share responsibility for the environment. Not only does the environment know no borders, but responsibility for the environment is also not neatly contained within one jurisdiction.

This government provides strong leadership in working collaboratively with its partners and its stakeholders, both at home and abroad, to protect our environment, to protect Canadians, and to protect the economy. This includes working to ensure Canadians are protected from the serious harmful effects of toxic substances.

The impacts of microplastics, including microbeads, on ecosystems are still being investigated. Some research has shown that microplastics can adsorb and desorb a variety of pollutants and may have the potential to bio-accumulate and cause adverse effects in aquatic organisms. Debris in the marine environment falls under the shared jurisdiction of not only Environment Canada but also Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Land-based sources of marine debris, including microplastics, fall under the jurisdictions of municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

As can be seen, the issue crosses many jurisdictional boundaries, so if we want to achieve real results, it is absolutely essential that we all work together. Environment Canada is doing just that. The department is involved in initiatives with Canadian provincial governments, with American state governments, and with the broader research communities. The department has also held discussions with Canadian industry associations.

While we are collaborating within our own borders, this government also understands that if we are to prevent plastics from entering the marine environment, we need to have international engagement on this issue. I would like to take this opportunity to turn to some of the international actions and processes under way and in place that are dealing with this challenge.

Internationally, the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans are defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea Treaty. However, most of the individual treaties and agreements relevant to protecting the marine environment from sea-based pollution are administered through the International Maritime Organization conventions.

Canada is a party to the major International Maritime Organization treaties on the prevention of marine pollution. This includes the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, which controls pollution from ships, and the London Convention and Protocol, which controls marine pollution from dumping of waste at sea.

It is important to highlight that discharge or disposal of marine litter, which includes marine plastics, at sea is generally prohibited by both of these treaties and by the Canadian laws that implement them domestically. While a party to these treaties, the federal government is aware that there is an opportunity for further action to protect our environment, and that is why we are participating in international discussions and studies on the prevention of marine plastic pollution.

Canada also welcomes the initiative of certain multinational companies to phase out microbeads from personal care products, to benefit our shared environment. For example, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association is encouraging companies to take action to prevent plastic pellet losses into the environment.

Canada is also pleased to participate in several international discussions where further action on marine plastics, and marine litter more generally, is being discussed. The United Nations Environment Assembly, for example, adopted a resolution for the oceans and law of the sea, which includes marine litter and microplastics, in June 2014. Marine debris has been proposed as a theme for the 16th meeting of the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea taking place later this year.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is also planning a joint meeting on chemicals this June, which will focus on a session on marine litter and the role of sustainable chemistry. In addition to this, Canada is participating, of course, in the G7 discussions on marine litter. There are significant international studies forthcoming as well, which we will be monitoring, and we will be assessing these results.

One such example is the United Nations global study on marine plastic debris and microplastics, which should be complete by 2016. In addition, the joint group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine environment protection recently conducted a study of the sources, the fate, and the effects of microplastics in the environment, which will be published later this year.

All of these international groups recognize the need to avoid duplication of efforts and are exploring different aspects of the issue, and the Government of Canada is working within this framework.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that this government understands that coordinated action between governments is crucial to advancing on environmental initiatives such as microplastics and the subsector, microbeads. This government is, therefore, in constant contact with its partners, other levels of government across the country and beyond our borders, and we are also working to stay on top of the latest research.

There is still more work and more study to be done, but this government is committed to following this issue closely and to taking any future steps that are determined to be warranted.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge the hon. member and his government to stop their position of studying and move to one of action. I have noticed that major corporate players like Johnson & Johnson, LUSH Cosmetics, and Colgate-Palmolive have already recognized the devastating impacts of microbeads on our waterways, on our marine life, and on the health of humans, potentially, and they have already taken steps to ban the production of microbeads and the use of them in their products.

We already know that high concentrations of plastic pollutants on beaches change the physical properties of sand, increasing its temperature and harming species that rely on those conditions. Microplastics absorb water pollutants, such as DDT, PAHs, and PCBs. When those are ingested by wildlife, the toxins bioaccumulate and become more concentrated as they move up our food chain.

Knowing that the corporate sector and the scientific community are united in the negative impacts of microbeads, will my hon. colleague agree that now is not the time for more study, but now is the time for the Government of Canada to take action and ban these harmful substances immediately?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again the NDP is rushing to take action while other major environmental organizations and the scientific community in general are still advising that continued study is necessary.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA, the national oceanographic body in the United States, are looking at this. We recognize the issue and we are working toward a solution, but it goes beyond microbeads and the banning of microbeads and gets into microplastics.

I have a letter from the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Some of its members have already banned and others are working to ban, and it concludes that the 14 companies it represents comprise the vast majority. With the phasing out of all of these products, there will be no microbeads in Canada, except through counterfeit products smuggled into the country.

Therefore, there is a need to address this problem, but I think the NDP's desire to rush to an immediate solution is not a worthy suggestion.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Thornhill might be able to tell the House what Canada is doing internationally to address microbeads and microplastics in the environment and, specifically, in our waterways.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I suggested during my remarks, this is something on which action does need to be taken domestically. The federal government and Environment Canada are the appropriate lead, but we do need to work in concert with our closest neighbour, the United States, with whom we share the Great Lakes, the greatest body of fresh water in the world. We also need to work with other countries around the world.

We are participating in the United Nations working group on marine litter and microplastics, and Canada is ranked in the mid-range of 192 coastal countries that contribute to marine litter. Comparatively speaking, Canada is not a primary contributor to marine litter, but we could do much better. We are also actively participating in the OECD working group to look at sustainable chemistry in terms of reducing the impacts of plastics in the marine environment.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this issue. Indeed, last Sunday, March 22, was World Water Day. The international theme this year was water and sustainable development.

Water is a vital issue to Canadians, essential to their health and their environment. Water is equally essential for the success of many key economic sectors in Canada, from tourism and recreation to farming, energy, and manufacturing.

Environment Canada coordinates environmental policies and programs and works for a clean, safe, and sustainable environment. It works to ensure we understand water quality and quantity issues that affect Canadians' access to clean water, and it implements regulations to protect our water.

Environment Canada takes the federal lead on water matters, including scientific monitoring and research, programs, regulations, and partnerships. Partnerships are very important, because water is a shared jurisdictional responsibility among federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments and individual citizens. Water crosses boundaries from province to province and between Canada and the United States.

Our government is committed to partnerships with many implicated stakeholders to protect our water resources. Governments in Canada are moving to an integrated ecosystem that is designed to ensure that decision making is co-operative and reflects the interests of many stakeholders. It is also designed to balance a range of goals, including sustainable water and aquatic resource measurement, protection from health threats linked to water quality, protection of aquatic ecosystems and species, and reduction of the health, economic, and safety impacts of floods and droughts.

Our government coordinates and makes many targeted investments in ecosystems like the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, Lake Simcoe and southeastern Georgian Bay, and the Lake Winnipeg basin.

Environment Canada leads the federal Great Lakes program, including implementation of the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 2012, the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health, 2014, the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, and the Great Lakes action plan, among other specific initiatives.

Through the Lake Simcoe and southeastern Georgian Bay cleanup fund, our government is investing $29 million from 2012 to 2017 to support community-based projects that demonstrate on-the-ground actions to reduce phosphorus discharges from urban and rural sources. This would help to protect and create aquatic habitat and enhance research and monitoring for decision making.

The St. Lawrence action plan, 2011 to 2026, is the latest agreement between Canada and Quebec, intended to conserve and enhance the St. Lawrence River. It builds on four previous agreements implemented since 1988.

Our government and the government of Quebec collaborate on about 50 specific projects, which all aim to achieve three main goals: biodiversity conservation, improved water quality, and sustainable resource use.

Since 2007, through the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative, our government has allocated a total of $36 million toward Environment Canada-led efforts to support the cleanup and long-term sustainability of Lake Winnipeg and its basin. An allocation of $18 million was made toward this in 2012.

Through this initiative, Environment Canada collaborates with other governments and stakeholders on scientific research and monitoring, nutrient management strategies, and financial support for stakeholder-driven, solution-oriented projects aimed at reducing nutrient loads and improving the ecological health of the Lake Winnipeg basin.

The next round of project funding under the Lake Winnipeg basin stewardship fund is being considered right now and will be announced this spring.

In the Atlantic region, through undertakings such as the Gulf of Maine initiative, funded under the national conservation plan, and the Atlantic ecosystem initiatives, significant results are achieved in improving water quality across near-shore and coastal watersheds.

At the heart of federal efforts to protect water quality for Canadians are some 700 scientific and technical professionals at Environment Canada who do field work or conduct leading-edge research about the health of aquatic ecosystems.

Environment Canada's freshwater quality monitoring and surveillance division focuses on regular monitoring, surveillance and reporting on freshwater quality and aquatic ecosystem status and trends. Its activities help to do the following. They help to assess threats to freshwater quality in the aquatic ecosystem areas I have already described. They meet federal commitments related to transboundary watersheds, rivers and lakes crossing international, interprovincial and territorial borders. They support the development, implementation and assessment of federal regulations, including the chemicals management plan, the clean air regulatory agenda, the federal sustainable development strategy and the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators.

Environment Canada has a network of laboratories that deliver world-class accredited science that supports the department's priority water programs. Environment Canada has eight operational units at seven laboratory facilities located in North Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Ottawa, Burlington, Montreal and Moncton.

Through all these efforts, our government is actively protecting the environment and Canadians from harmful pollutants. We understand that our success depends on effective collaboration within Canada among all levels of government, with our local stakeholder partners who have local expertise, with aboriginal governments with traditional knowledge, and between Canada and the United States.

The impacts of microplastics, including microbeads, are being investigated. Our government is closely following new developments on microplastics as they become available. Academic literature is currently identifying that the sources of microplastics are found in some personal care products. These personal care products, like facial scrubs, do contain microbeads.

We are aware of legislative developments in jurisdictions like Ontario and Illinois, planning to ban microbeads in personal care products. We understand that the personal care products industry is also currently exploring opportunities to reduce the use of microbeads.

Canada is actively participating in international discussions on the prevention of marine plastic pollution, notably through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still not convinced that the government's approach to this issue is proactive enough. I know that there is going to be a study on this issue, and I would like to ask my Conservative colleague this: if we talk about the study that the government has suggested, when will Canadians and parliamentarians get the results? My question is not so much about the results but about the timeline.

Obviously I believe we need to take action. If we have a short, one-year timeline, that is reasonable. However, having to wait five years for the results would be unacceptable. When can we expect to receive the results of the study on microbeads?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, even in the opposition motion brought forward today, the New Democrats own language says, “That, in the opinion of the House, microbeads in consumer products entering the environment could have serious harmful effects”. I would assume they very purposely used the word “could” because they members also realize that there needs to be a study on the real impacts. There is potential, but there are no studies that I am aware of that actually say these are, for sure, the things that occur. There have been some comments throughout the day today about whether there is an impact on humans through the consumption of fish.

Again, it is a lot of unproven and unknown statements. We have to do the proper study. I know the chemicals management plan brought forward by our government will prioritize microbeads in that process.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and the Conservatives participating in the debate today for saying that they will take action on microbeads. We want to see this listing within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as soon as possible.

I am certainly very encouraged by the positive tone of today's debate. Could we extend this to looking at other plastics which are currently contaminating the ocean? Is the member aware of any other steps that have been taken to ensure we reduce what are now huge areas in the ocean that are essentially awash in plastic?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my comments I mentioned the fact that Canada was in international discussions on the prevention of marine plastic pollutants, notably through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations. It is something that has Canada's attention. We are aware of these challenges and we are definitely one of the international partners working forward on this.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on some erroneous comments made earlier by the NDP. In fact, Canada is a world leader with our chemicals management plan. It is certainly something that has made us a world leader in assessing our legacy chemicals. Our work with the chemicals management plan has resulted in the assessment of 2,700 chemicals since 2006, when we came to power. It certainly demonstrates Canada's active role in chemicals assessment and it would certainly indicate that this is a stronger record than any previous government.

Could the member comment on the very extensive work that has been done by our government, certainly far more than any previous government? I would like his comment on that strong record and any thoughts he has on it.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. Since 2006, we have been leaders in this field in Canada, among many other things. There is this constant talk about scientists not being allowed to speak. It is such a myth being perpetuated by the members across the floor. It is very obvious. We have over 700 scientists working in Environment Canada on these very issues. They continue to bring forward their work and report on it. They are also internationally recognized leaders in this research and development.

Yes, we are very proud of our record since 2006, working together on these initiatives, and we will continue to do so.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

Last summer, residents of Toledo, Ohio had to find drinking water from other sources as their traditional one, Lake Erie, had become unsuitable for human consumption. The culprit was blue green algae, which is thought to be the product of too much fertilizer making its way into the lake, but it highlights how things can take a quick change for the worse and how we should do all we can to protect our precious freshwater resources.

That Toledo was even able to take its water from Lake Erie is remarkable when one considers the history of that area. For those of us who remember, Lake Erie has already been pulled back from the brink once. In fact, the Cuyahoga River that flows into the lake at Cleveland was so thoroughly polluted that it caught fire a number of times. The fire on that river in 1969 became a symbol for how polluted North American waterways had become, especially in the industrial heartland around the Great Lakes.

What is worth noting is that the fire and the images of the similarly polluted Lake Erie became flashpoints that led to clean water legislation and a reversal in fortune for the lake. Unfortunately it is threatened again by too much algae, which is preventable. However, it, along with the other Great Lakes, is also threatened by another preventable pollutant. This is why we are having this debate today.

We are considering a motion that aims to protect our freshwater resources from an entirely man-made problem by adding microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Environmental Protection Act. It is a matter of stating priorities and putting our common good ahead of the convenience these microbeads afford manufacturers of consumer goods.

Although this is the first time I am aware of that we are discussing microbeads in Parliament, if we adopt this motion, we will join other jurisdictions that have already legislated to ban microbeads or are currently seized with this issue. In addition to that, many companies are voluntarily moving away from microbeads in anticipation of some form of ban as good environmental practice or even for public relations purposes. For whatever the reason, the idea of moving past the pollutant is not being fought tooth and nail in every corner of the industries that use it in their products, which is amazing.

I am sure many people are unaware of the existence of microbeads or just how pervasive their use is in products like cosmetics and toothpaste. They are made of polyethylene which is a form of plastic. The beads create a sense of smoothness in the texture of a product or conversely create a grit that is used in products like exfoliants or toothpaste. In most cases, they are being used to replace more natural options such as ground almonds, oatmeal or sea salt. Although the technology to create these has been around for more than four decades, it is in recent years that the use the microbeads has really taken off.

Microbeads also slip effortlessly through our water treatment facilities and find their way into our waters. While it may be possible to develop filtration technology to target this pollutant, the option is both theoretical and costly, while placing the responsibility on society and excusing those producers that benefit from the convenience of microplastics for their products. It is an obvious choice between the options and I would hope others in the House would see it in the same way.

It is important to remove these plastics from our waters because they make their way into life forms as they float around. The plastic alone is unhealthy, but the problem does not end there. Once ingested, microbeads can cause asphyxiation or blockage of organs. In addition to that, microbeads can be a pollution magnifier. Because they are made of plastic, they attract chemical pollutants, which can in turn unknowingly be ingested by a variety of marine life. This adds to the buildup of pollutants in the food chain which many people are exposed to, especially those who eat fish from polluted waters.

The bad news is that microbeads can already be found in high concentrations in the Great Lakes. The problem is most noticeable downstream from major cities and in the sediments of the St. Lawrence River.

The good news is that there is already momentum behind the notion of moving past microbeads for cosmetic uses, and although we are later than some to the party, we are beginning the process of catching up today.

Internationally, the Netherlands is the leader on this front, and it will have cosmetics that are microbead-free by the end of next year. It is forcing industry's hand, which is the role the government should take in these instances.

In North America, Illinois has been the first to ban the manufacture or sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads. Other state legislatures—California, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and New Jersey—are considering legislation of their own.

In addition to that, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, which is a binational coalition of more than 100 mayors, is calling for action on microbeads by 2015.

For its part, the cosmetics industry is not fighting back. Cosmetic leaders such as The Body Shop, Johnson & Johnson, Lush Cosmetics, and Colgate have seen that a ban is coming, have recognized the public relations benefit that comes from voluntarily moving away from microbeads, and have all stated their intention to do just that.

In fact, at least 21 companies around the world have made some level of commitment to phase out microbeads in their products, which is unbelievable. They are seeing what the future holds.

New Democrats are asking the government today to avoid the mishmash approach we are seeing in the United States and to take advantage of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to move Canada ahead as a whole on this front. By taking immediate action and listing microbeads as toxic under the EPA, we could then move to regulate, phase out, and eventually eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada.

Like all Canadians, we want a clean and healthy environment and the benefits that flow from that. This is especially important for our recreational fishing industry and for the safety of fish and other aquatic species most affected by the plastic.

As a member with a constituency that touches two of the Great Lakes, Lake Superior and Lake Huron, I feel it is important to take part in this debate today.

The Great Lakes are among Canada's finest treasures and, along with the St. Lawrence River, amount to the original highway used by our ancestors to explore the continent. It would be a shame and a travesty to dismiss this problem and allow these magnificent waters to become more polluted when the solution is so entirely simple.

We must protect the gains that were made as we came to realize the negative effects that industrialization, especially chemicals, were placing on these lakes, which contain a full 21% of the surface fresh water in the world. To do anything less would be short-sighted and cynical.

While it is true that there are beneficial uses for polyethylene microbeads in areas such as biomedical and health research, surely we can find a solution that will make room for those uses without allowing our freshwater resources to be overrun with this pollutant.

Many of us have children and grandchildren, of which I have two, and believe it is incumbent on us to take the long view in this debate for their benefit. We are trusted as stewards. We must remember that we inherited this bounty and are charged with handing it off in similar or even better shape. That is why the more we understand, the more we are compelled to act.

In terms of industry, we can see that there is a willingness to work with government on this issue, which is not always so easily found. Since there are already options that were used in the past, a replacement for microbeads is not a mystery that must be unravelled as much as a solution that can be revisited. It makes so much sense to move past these items of convenience. It will be only through short-sightedness or self-interest that no movement is made on this front as quickly as possible.

Many members are outdoor sports enthusiasts, even on that side of the House. If nothing else, I will appeal to those members about the fish and game they put on their plates. Who among us would want to eat food that has been contaminated by plastics that attract and hold on to additional chemicals in the water? I know I would not.

The answer is simple enough. We can bring Canada to the forefront on this issue by listing microbeads under the Environmental Protection Act and moving on to the next challenge.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

This is most interesting, especially considering that we had fish for lunch today.

Mr. Speaker, this government is actively engaged in the protection of the health of Canadians, including with respect to Canada's food sources.

It was therefore with great interest that I listened to remarks made by the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I did not believe that her academic training made her more of an expert than me on this subject, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Can the member tell the House if she has studies that demonstrate the presence of microbeads in the fish fillets eaten by Canadians, such as those that we had for lunch today?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be an expert, but I can say that states and communities have already started banning the use of microbeads. As I was eating the fish today, I wondered if it was contaminated. That is something we have to ask ourselves.

The Conservative member needs to realize that his government is not doing enough to protect people and that it is harming the environment. The Conservatives got rid of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and cut off funding for the Canadian Environmental Network. They have muzzled, fired and intimidated government scientists—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The member for Ottawa—Orléans on a point of order.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member if she has studies that she can give us in order to help us agree with her.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans. He would likely know, given the time that he has been in the House, that this is not really a point of order.

Questions are posed to hon. members by other hon. members if they wish to pose them. Of course, it is entirely up to the hon. member how she may wish to respond to a question, keeping in mind that it must be pertinent to the subject that is before the House, which I believe it is.

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. The member has been in the House for a long time, and he knows how it works. I already told him that several cities have already started banning the use of this product. This shows that they based their decisions on studies, and I am sure we will know more after looking at this in committee.

As I said, the Conservatives are no friends of the environment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have chosen to debate an interesting topic today.

I would like to reflect on the importance of public education. A government can implement certain measures in order to help our environment. I talked at great length with respect to a couple of personal ones at the provincial level, and perhaps I will have the opportunity later to expand on that. However, one of the overriding themes we should recognize is that the consumer has a critical role to play here. More than ever, Canadians are very much in tune with our environment and want to take positive steps toward having a better environment.

My question to the member is related to education and how important it is for government and for individual members to use issues such as this as a way to better educate or inform constituents and Canadians as a whole about how they can contribute to a better environment by not using specific products, as an example, and by explaining what microbeads are. Most Canadians have no idea what a microbead is. Therefore, there is an important role for education in this whole process, as well as government regulation.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member mentioned the education aspect. That is exactly what we are doing here today: sensitizing people as to how microbeads affect our food chain. The fact that 100 mayors who are part of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a binational coalition, are calling for action on microbeads by 2015, and that there are states that have started looking at this issue as well, with some having actually banned microbeads, speaks loudly to the intent that we need to not only continue to educate but also to act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to support the NDP opposition day motion to designate microbead plastics as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As people will know from following the debate, microbeads were originally found in cleansers, and about 10 years ago they moved into a wide variety of personal care products.

What is the problem with them? The government's side does not seem to be convinced that there is any science or evidence that there is a problem here. However, microplastics absorb pollutants in the water, such as DDT, PAH, and PCBs. When those toxins are absorbed by the microplastics, they tend to bioaccumulate in the food chain. That means that they become more concentrated as they work their way up the food chain.

Many colleagues here have talked about the concentrations of these microbead plastics in the Great Lakes. I want to talk about the situation on the west coast, since I represent a southern Vancouver Island riding.

Last year Dr. Peter Ross, who now works at the Vancouver Aquarium, released his research on concentration of microbead plastics on the Pacific coast. He took 34 water samples from the Salish Sea around Vancouver and around Victoria, as well as offshore and at the north end of Vancouver Island. His findings were really quite shocking.

Peter Ross is a much-cited research scientist. He was formerly employed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada as the director of its Pacific Ocean pollution unit. What happened in 2012 was that the Conservative government decided to completely eliminate the capacity of the Canadian federal government to check for pollution on the west coast. Not only was Peter Ross laid off, but all of the other eight members of the west coast ocean pollution unit were laid off as well, meaning that we now have no ability as a federal government to check for the impacts of these microbead plastics that the government members are standing and asking for evidence about. The government eliminated the ability to collect that evidence in 2012, and I think it was deliberate.

Since then the Vancouver Aquarium, which is a private foundation, has hired Peter Ross and is funding its own ocean pollution studies because, as an aquarium that engages in public education, it thinks that this is essential work that somebody has to pick up now that the federal government has dropped the ball.

What did Peter Ross find? It is actually quite shocking.

In the sample that had the highest concentration of these microbead plastics, he found 9,180 particles per cubic metre of water. The lowest he found, over 100 kilometres offshore of Vancouver Island, was 8, so even far offshore, there were still microbead plastics in the ocean. In the Strait of Georgia, the Salish Sea, he found an average of 3,210 particles per cubic metre.

Why am I concerned about that? Let me talk in very simple terms about how it works around Vancouver Island.

Plankton ingest the particles. The plankton are eaten by herring. The herring are eaten by salmon. The salmon are eaten by the orcas. People will know that I have been advocating for two years to have an action plan to protect the southern resident killer whales off of Vancouver Island, so this is part of the problem. Ocean pollution and microbead plastics are part of the problem in trying to ensure the survival of the orcas.

Am I being an alarmist? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans says that there is a 50% chance of extinction of the southern resident killer whales by the end of this century. There is a 50% chance, and that is Fisheries and Oceans' own figure.

Therefore, what are we doing? The government designated the southern resident killer whales as “endangered” in 2003. That was 12 years ago. Then it took both the Liberals and Conservatives until March of 2014 to produce a draft action plan. It was not an action plan, but a draft action plan. Last March, over a year ago, they asked stakeholders who are concerned about the fate of the southern resident killer whales and this problem of pollution, which is one of the large parts of the problem, to make comments. We have heard nothing from the government since then.

It is a year later, and the last statement I got in a letter from the minister said that in the spring of 2015 the government would be talking to those who submitted comments. I know that it does not feel like spring here in Ottawa, but I am from Vancouver Island and we are well into spring there, so I convened my own meeting of the stakeholders last Friday night. I brought them together and asked them what they told the federal government needed to be done and what all of us can do at the local level to try to get started on an action plan. Members will be hearing more about that later.

It was very successful in that we had whale researchers, whale scientists, pollution experts, the Northwest Wildlife Preservation Society, education experts, and the South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition. We had the Dogwood Initiative. We had the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Members get the idea of who was in the room.

Everyone recognizes that we have a crisis with the southern resident killer whales. Everyone, even the federal government, recognizes the crisis. The problem is that we do not get any action. With the Department of the Environment facing cuts of up to 30% in this next budget round, it is very difficult to see how it is going to take the kinds of actions necessary to ensure the survival of the southern resident killer whales.

There has been some good news, and I want to address that, because sometimes people get overly optimistic. We have had three new calves born to southern resident killer whales. One of those, though, did not survive, and the mother, a breeding female, also died. Why did they die? The initial tests on the whales indicated that they starved to death. Why did they starve to death? There is a problem with the food supply in chinook salmon. There is also a problem with microbead plastics in that when they are ingested by marine animals, they think they are full, when they are getting no nutrition. We have a serious and direct connection between microbead plastics and the problems we are facing with southern resident killer whales. Therefore, we focus on the good news of calves being born.

Since 1998, 39 orca calves have been born and survived. That sounds pretty good, except that since 1998, 61 orcas have gone missing or have died. We are now down to a total of 79 southern resident killer whales. As I said, Fisheries and Oceans officials are themselves admitting that there is a 50% chance of the extinction of these iconic beings on the south coast of the island. What can we do about that?

In October 2013, I put a motion before the House to implement a recovery strategy for the southern resident killer whales. The motion said that we need continuing support for research and monitoring programs. That is what is in the federal government's draft plan. I am not arguing with that part. We need to monitor things like the pollution microbead plastics are causing. However, that is all that is in the government's draft plan.

The second part of my plan, which I worked out with stakeholders, was to implement programs to decrease the pollution in the Salish Sea. One of the ways is to eliminate the microbead plastics. This motion applies very directly to the strategy we need to save the southern resident killer whales. In addition to that, we called for a ban on cosmetic pesticide use in home gardens. I was very proud, when I sat on the city council in Esquimalt, before I came here, that we did this in our municipality. We eliminated the cosmetic use of all of those, and what happened was very interesting. The retailers are stopping the stocking of those toxic chemicals people were using on their yards.

One of my favourite things that happened while we were doing this campaign was that my neighbour came over and asked about all the grass that was growing between the bricks. We lived in a townhouse. He said that he thought we would go together and buy some pesticides, and then he started talking slowly and said, “I think I am talking to the wrong person”, because I had introduced the motion to get rid of the cosmetic use of pesticides. I said to him that he should be talking to his pregnant wife. I asked if he really wanted to put pesticides down on his driveway that his kid would be crawling on. We had a very good conversation about what people can do themselves.

While we are waiting for the current government to take some action to ban microbead plastics, consumers can have a look at the products they are buying, and they can start favouring those companies that have already phased out the use of microbead plastics.

In my strategy, we also called for an expansion of the chemical registry list to include all of those kinds of pollutants that are harmful to the southern resident killer whales.

As the Speaker knows, I could go on for a long time here, because I think this is very urgent, and this opposition day motion feeds into what I have been trying to get action on from the government.

The last two parts of my strategy dealt with noise levels. Whales are easily disturbed by noise when they are trying to feed, because they use sonar to track their food sources.

The last part deals with measures to improve the chinook stocks, because for some reason, the orcas around southern Vancouver Island are very fussy eaters, and they prefer chinook, and so do most of the people. What we need to do is not fight over the last fish with the whales; we need to make sure that we take action to increase those fish stocks and take action, as with this motion, to make sure that those fish stocks do not include the toxins that bioaccumulate from microbead plastics.

I am very proud to stand in support of this motion today. I see it as a part of what we must do to protect the environmental heritage for all of those to come in Canada, and in particular, to protect against the extinction of southern resident killer whales.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today is an important one, but we have to start focusing on the science. I would like to discuss with my colleague the fact that all the evidence to date does not show a link between the decline of the whale population and microbeads. Is he standing up in the House today suggesting that there is a link between microbeads and the decline in whale populations?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is absolutely. Peter Ross, one of the world-renowned experts, has made that link.

What happens is that the toxins attach themselves to the microbead plastics. They are ingested by plankton. They are eaten by the herring and the salmon, and that makes the southern resident killer whales the most polluted species in the world. What we are calling for are measures to help reduce those pollution levels in the ocean so that these magnificent mammals can survive.