Debates of March 24th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We have seen so many examples of the federal government withdrawing from areas that it should take responsibility for, whether it be in terms of the availability of pharmaceuticals, whether it be in terms of the environment, whether it be with respect to provisions in the Fisheries Act.

The current Conservative federal government has shown repeatedly that if it can dump something off to the provinces, it will do that. If the Conservatives can, they will duck responsibility for a particular issue. Anything that has to do with health care, for example, even though the federal government is responsible for the Canada Health Act and it funds health care in this country, the Conservatives will not take any responsibility for. They leave it up to the provinces.

This is another case where the government has the authority and responsibility under legislation and the Conservatives have an opportunity to move. We are encouraging them, through this motion, for once to show some action and leadership and do something to protect our environment for generations.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the motion before us and about this very important issue. Our government is committed to protecting the environment and agrees that the issue of microplastics, including microbeads, warrants action.

I would like to deal with some of the comments from the NDP opposite. I always find it quite amusing when NDP members talk about the environment. Their concern for the environment is a phony concern. All that the NDP members care about is process, process, process. What they really want to do is stop all natural resource development.

For example, take the oil sands, which NDP members are avowed enemies of. It is interesting that 575,000 Canadian families make their income from the oil sands. The NDP must be very pleased now with the drop in oil prices and the difficulties that the oil sands are having now. That must make that side very happy.

In terms of our changes to the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is no wonder that the NDP is upset about it. This reduces duplication but at the same time improves environmental protection.

One of the things NDP members never talk about is Canada's environmental indicators. They shy away all the time from talking about what is actually happening in the environment, quantifying and measuring environmental change.

The track record of this government since we came to office in 2006 environmentally has been exemplary. Almost every single environmental indicator in this country, from air quality to water quality and biodiversity, has improved under our watch.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour sneers at the recreational fishery and the anglers of this country, all four million of them, hundreds of groups across the country who engage in aquatic and water quality conservation work. I was very pleased that our government created the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. It is partnering with almost 400 groups across the country to improve water quality and fish habitat in this country. It is a program that the other side strongly opposed. The results of this program are there for everybody to see. So far, almost two million square metres of habitat have been improved and 2,000 kilometres of aquatic shoreline have been conserved.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour talked about the state of the fishery and the oceans. Interestingly, under our watch, in 2010 and 2014, the largest sockeye salmon runs up the Fraser River in history occurred. That was under this government's watch.

Also, recently, our government announced the national conservation plan with $50 million for wetland conservation, $50 million for upland habitat conservation and $100 million for the natural areas conservation program. What the other side does not appreciate is how ecosystems are all linked, and this kind of wetland and habitat and natural area conservation programming has very important water quality improvement implications. Again, when I think of my own province, the $18 million being spent on Lake Winnipeg is doing great things in terms of improving the water quality.

Is the job done? Of course not, but because our government focuses on real and measurable environmental results as opposed to process, process, process that only enriches the environmental lawyers, we are seeing measurable improvements in our environment.

Regarding the issue at hand, I think we have to make a distinction between microplastics and microbeads, because both are relevant to today's discussion.

Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic and they can be deliberately manufactured to be very small like microbeads typically used in personal care products. However, microplastics can also result from the breakdown over time of larger pieces of plastics. Various types of microplastics can be of concern to the environment and may require a different solution depending on their source. Environment Canada is one of the many players looking at the broader issue of microplastics.

A release of debris in the marine environment, which can include plastics and microplastics, falls under the responsibility of the federal government. Land-based sources of marine debris, including microplastics, fall under the shared jurisdictions of municipal, provincial, territorial and federal governments. This is why our government works with other levels of government.

Industries that manufacture products and packaging that use or create microplastics are also engaged in addressing this issue. It is critical that we prevent plastic from getting into the environment in the first place.

In 2014, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of the environment, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME, adopted a vision for waste management to improve Canada's record on reducing and recycling waste. One of the key areas of shared action is to implement extended producer responsibility programs, or EPRs, to support the diversion of products from landfills. EPR allocates some of the waste management responsibility to the producer, manufacturer, or first importer of the product.

The CCME 2009 Canada-wide action plan for EPR has resulted in most provincial governments having regulated EPR programs for a wide range of products, including plastic packaging. There are residential packaging and printed paper recycling programs and beverage container diversion programs that operate in almost every province and territory across Canada, and efforts are under way to address plastic bags as well.

From a global perspective, Canada is not considered to be a significant contributor to marine plastic waste. However, it is important that all members of the international community take steps to prevent plastics from entering the marine environment. To this end, in Canada, disposal at sea without a permit from a ship, aircraft, or platform of any substance, including plastics, is generally prohibited under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Canada also participates in a number of international initiatives geared toward better protection of the marine environment. The personal care industry is also taking steps that will assist in dealing with this issue, and some multinational companies have publicly announced their intention to phase out the use of microbeads in personal care products. I encourage Canadian companies to continue to explore opportunities to reduce or eliminate the use of microbeads.

In the plastics industry sector, a voluntary initiative called Operation Clean Sweep is geared to prevent plastic pellet losses to the environment. In Canada, 95 plastics companies have already signed on to this international initiative, which is promoted in Canada by the Canadian Plastics Industry Association. Again, I encourage all Canadian plastic sector companies to join the program.

Although efforts are already under way that will help address the issue of microplastics, this government certainly agrees that more can be done, and Environment Canada will continue to monitor scientific developments, including those of several Canadian universities and other research organizations.

For example, work is under way with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a U.S. federal agency that is focused on the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. In May 2014, the agency released a Great Lakes land-based marine debris action plan in which both plastics and microplastics are targeted, and the University of Waterloo and the University of Western Ontario are both working with American universities on this particular issue. This scientific information will assist the department in better understanding the issue and determining whether more actions are required.

Canada will continue to participate in various international fora that are examining the issue of microplastics, including the International Maritime Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. The goal of all of these multinational efforts is to better understand concerns regarding microplastics so that governments can put forward the appropriate measures where required.

Our government's chemicals management plan will prioritize microbeads for assessment. The chemicals management plan represents a major undertaking by this or any government. Few other countries can boast of such a major systematic effort to evaluate and address chemicals within their borders. It is a legacy that our government is proud to stand on, and one that will benefit Canadians for generations to come.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to concerns and to outline some of the actions that have already been put in place to address issues surrounding microplastics. Naturally, there is more work to be done, and we are committed to continuing to follow this issue closely and to take action.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He is a good friend of mine, a very astute biologist, and has a great track record when it comes to all things of the environment, but the question I have for him today is more about the choice of the NDP to have this topic brought before the House.

The Parliament of Canada runs at an operating cost of about $500 million a year. The House of Commons sits about 137 days a year, which is about $3.7 million a day when we factor in the cost of running the House on that basis. On the issue before the House today, there is virtually unanimous consent among all MPs. I would doubt that even a single MP is going to vote against this motion. This is an issue that could have easily been handled by writing letters to the minister, bringing it up at committee, even just making an odd complaint in the public media.

I do not have one letter in my constituency office on this subject. I do not understand what all the fuss is about in an election year, with an election six months away. When we have all kinds of issues facing our country, such as international jihadist terrorism threats, other economic issues, and so on, the issue that the NDP brings up is microplastics.

It is clear that my colleague understands this issue. Does he have any confidence in the NDP's ability to judge what is important in this country?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence in the NDP to do anything.

My colleague from Wetaskiwin, a biologist himself and a former park warden, is a man whose entire career has been in environmental conservation. He is a real environmentalist, as opposed to the other kind.

When I listened to the speeches across the way, I heard very little that dealt with this particular issue, and my colleague is exactly right: we all agree with the motion. The motion makes sense, and in my own speech I said I agree with it, but the speeches of New Democrats were all over the map. They are just trying to use this issue as a political football, and they really simply do not care.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking them to agree. We are asking them to do something other than wait for the reactions of American universities, international organizations, the European Union, Japan, China and basically everyone. We are always the last to respond when there is a threat, except when it comes to threats that the government has invented and is trying to impose on people.

As to whether it is a waste of time to discuss this subject, it is important to remember that it is a government's job to solve problems. Right now, we are facing an extremely serious environmental problem and we want to do something other than just talk about it. We want the Conservatives to do something to resolve the problem, as other countries have done. We do not have to wait and see what the United States is going to do about DOT-111 cars or wait to hear the opinions of everyone on the planet. We are here to govern. That is why it is called a government. The Conservatives will have to wake up one day.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question because it gives me a chance to make the point yet again that under our watch, almost all of Canada's environmental indicators have actually improved.

If the other side actually did the math on the environment, which they never do because it is all emotional political rhetoric, they would see that our environment is undergoing constant and measurable improvement under this government.

The national conservation plan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and already some of it has been spent with clear and measurable results. It demonstrates to Canadians that this government not only cares about the environment but is actually doing something about it and generating measurable results.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this very important issue. Previous speakers on this side of the House have already indicated that we will be supporting the motion.

The Great Lakes together form the largest area of fresh surface water on the planet. They are a direct source of drinking water for millions of Canadians and home to thousands of species. I am very grateful in my area to the Grand River Conservation Authority for the key initiatives that it has put forward. They have been instrumental in improving the quality of our Great Lakes water.

The Great Lakes support fishing, shipping, and tourism, industries that inject billions of dollars annually into the Canadian economy. Singly and combined, they represent a fundamental ecosystem that sustains a rich diversity of plants and animals. The health of the Great Lakes is absolutely vital to the well-being of Canadians and of our American neighbours to the south.

However, the Great Lakes ecosystem, which provides us with so much in so many ways, faces a number of stresses. Population growth, agricultural intensification, the introduction of aquatic invasive species, changing climatic conditions, urban and agricultural runoff, municipal waste water effluents, and industrial discharges all threaten the Great Lakes and require sustained and focused attention.

I am honoured to serve currently at the chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Just recently we completed a study on Great Lakes water quality, and it was interesting to note the number of areas that have improved. Yes, we have more work to do, but there is certainly great work being done.

The good news is that the Great Lakes are getting the attention needed from this government. Provincial and municipal governments, community groups, researchers, and concerned citizens are all combining to improve the state of our Great Lakes as well.

The Government of Canada has a comprehensive approach to promote clean water for all Canadians. We recognize the importance of taking action, resolving existing environmental issues, and anticipating and preventing future problems. The government understands that our success depends on effective collaboration within Canada and between Canada and the United States.

Indeed, the Government of Canada has been working with the United States government to address critical environmental health issues through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for more than 40 years. Our collaborative work through this agreement focuses on developing the necessary programs, technologies, and other measures to better understand the Great Lakes ecosystem and to restore and protect water quality and ecosystem health.

In 2012 Canada and the United States amended the agreement to include the identification of science priorities and the development and implementation of research monitoring programs. Environment Canada is playing a key role in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes, and these new priorities reflect the valuable work of the department.

At this time I would like to share with members of the House some of the research, monitoring, and other activities administered by Environment Canada that are contributing toward work on the Great Lakes. These include national science programs supporting the chemicals management plan, freshwater quality monitoring, Canadian environmental sustainability indicators, climate change adaptation, clean air regulatory agenda, and genomics.

The department is conducting world-class research to address the complex environmental problems that affect the Great Lakes and their watersheds as well as the St. Lawrence River and coastal water into which the Great Lakes flow. The government's research delivers new knowledge and technological innovation that continue to advance remediation and the delisting of both Canadian and American areas of concern.

Federal scientists also conduct research to better understand the role of human and environmental factors that are contributing to changes in water quality and water quantity in the Great Lakes. For example, leading-edge research is under way on factors affecting toxic and harmful algae blooms and near-shore algae growth. This new research is providing new techniques to provide insight into when and where toxic algae are likely to occur in the Great Lakes.

Under the Government of Canada's Great Lakes nutrient initiative, Environment Canada is monitoring the contribution of phosphorus to Lake Erie from Canadian sources. This is a means of understanding and managing the nutrients connected with algae growth. This science and related work will support establishing binational phosphorus reduction targets and the development of phosphorus reduction strategies and action plans.

Perhaps most important, Environment Canada scientists are conducting scientific inquiries and modelling to create new knowledge tools and approaches for tackling the multiple and interacting stressors affecting the Great Lakes and their aquatic life.

In addition, the department also engages in unique research and monitoring activities under the freshwater quality monitoring initiative in the Great Lakes Basin, the Great Lakes action plan and the Great Lakes nutrient initiative tailored specifically for the Great Lakes Basin. The freshwater quality and monitoring initiative focuses on evaluating water quality trends and identifying emerging issues.

With its partners across government and non-government organizations, Environment Canada focuses and coordinates monitoring activities based on science priorities identified for each Great Lake. While the monitoring of the Great Lakes began in the 1960s, since 1974, Environment Canada has conducted surveillance using standardized scientific approaches. Monitoring occurs so that the water quality in each lake is monitored regularly.

In addition to the work in Lake Erie, Environment Canada is conducting scientific research in Lake Simcoe and southeastern Georgian Bay under the Lake Simcoe/South-eastern Georgian Bay clean-up fund.

Two current research projects are directed at improving water quality in South-eastern Georgian Bay. This includes investigating the factors, controlling algae levels and oxygen conditions in the bay, and determining the sources of phosphorous entering the groundwater and being discharged by the Nottawasaga River into the bay.

The Government of Canada is committed to funding scientific research and surveillance that benefits Canadians. We are investing in Canada's future competitiveness and growth, while moving ahead toward the larger goal of protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. It is taking the necessary actions to resolve challenges that already exist and focusing on anticipating and preventing new environmental problems.

As I have illustrated in detail, I am proud of our government living up to its commitment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I have the honour to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which he chairs. Although we may not agree on everything, we still manage to get along a little.

We did do a study on the Great Lakes, but the study was unfortunately limited to certain aspects. For example, we were not able to talk about climate change or water levels and temperatures, which also have a huge impact on the Great Lakes.

We also started talking about the effect of microbeads as part of the study on the Great Lakes, and I am pleased that we are discussing this topic today, since it is serious and important.

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, which represents some 30 cities, sent a letter to the Minister of the Environment, whom I will not name as I mistakenly did earlier. On January 3, the minister replied and said that the government would consider “proposing the issue of microplastics as a possible priority issue to be addressed”.

That makes no sense. If the government takes this seriously, it needs to take action immediately. It should not wait for the opposition to do it.

We are proactive and constructive on this side, and we proposed this initiative. Now, it is up to the Conservatives to take action and support our motion.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the environment committee. He is right that we do not always agree on every issue, but I know we both have the same interest, which is to improve the environment of our country. It is good to work together with him.

One of the things that has been mentioned many times throughout the day today is the fact that our government has instituted the chemicals management plan. Rather than simply repeat this fact over and over, I have chosen to focus on some of the collaborative ways our government is working with other levels of government and with industry.

In fact, we heard today that 95 different companies have agreed voluntarily to eliminate the use of these microplastics in their products. Two of the companies that I have quite a bit of interest in and previous co-operation with in my days of dentistry are Crest and Colgate. I know Colgate has already eliminated this product from its products. Crest hopes to produce a microbead-free product by March of 2016.

While the opposition may not understand the fact that it is important to work in collaboration and co-operation with industry and other levels of government to get things done, we on this side want to work collaboratively and find the synergy that comes from working together.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's answer to a question I put to other members of his caucus. It is related to industry responsibility in dealing with products that have an impact on the environment.

No matter where we look in the country, Canadians are far more sensitive to the environment than they ever have been. There is a growing appetite for government to demonstrate a leadership role, where it can, in protecting the environment.

The question I have for the member is related to the answer he just gave, which is the important role that industry and the private sector have when it comes to responsibility. That bar continues to be raised, and justifiably so. However, government also has to ensure that not only do we give credit to where there is good corporate or industry behaviour, but also recognize that we need to work with some companies and look at ways in which they could be nudged, shoved or encouraged to look at the consequences of some of the products.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I referenced two of the companies with which I have had close contact. In my area of Kitchener, we have the Grand River Conservation Authority. This group works collaboratively with industry partners and with farmers who farm along the Grand River watershed, which feeds into the Great Lakes. The initiative they are taking is incredible in terms of the improvement of our water in our streams and rivers and eventually in our lake.

We have to work collaboratively. Yes, industry has a role to play, but the experience I have had to this point in my nine years here it is that they are eager to work with us if we show the leadership they expect of our government.

I cannot be more proud of the environmental record of this government since we took office in 2006.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Halifax for her work on the environment and for this motion calling for microbeads to be added to the list of toxic substances by the federal government under the Environmental Protection Act.

This is a very important motion. As an MP from the Toronto area, my riding borders Lake Ontario. I take this very seriously, as do constituents in our area and people who live around the Great Lakes. However, this also affects people who live around the world.

We know about plastic contaminant in our world's oceans, but we are talking about the very small manufactured pieces of plastic called microbeads, which are particularly problematic. They are used in many consumer products, such as facial cleansers, shower gels and toothpaste.

These microbeads persist in the environment and are very susceptible to soaking up toxins in the water around them. They cause harm to fish and other wildlife. They are found in very high concentrations in the Great Lakes waters, particularly downstream from major cities.

Toronto is a major city in Canada, and my riding is on the border of the Humber River, which is one of the major watersheds in our area. Toxins come down that river and into Lake Ontario. In fact, a U.S. study found the highest concentration of microbeads among the Great Lakes in the Lake Ontario area. This is of great concern to everyone in the city of Toronto.

Microbeads are consumed by a variety of marine life, fish harvested for human consumption, and it can also cause asphyxiation and blockages of organs in marine animals. Chemical pollutants tend to accumulate and persist in microplastics, which could then transfer these chemicals to the animals ingesting the plastic.

Microbeads have been patented for use since 1972, but it was not until the 1990s when manufacturers began to replace them with more natural alternatives, such as ground almonds, oatmeal and sea salt. Therefore, since alternatives do exist, plastic microbeads are not an essential ingredient in cosmetics or personal care products.

Water treatment facilities are unable to filter these microbeads because they are very small and buoyant. Upgrading treatment plants would be prohibitively costly and there are no known ways to effectively remove these microplastics after they make their way into the environment. Therefore, the simplest solution, and the one that the New Democrats support, is reducing the problem at its source and preventing it by getting rid of these microbeads.

The New Democrats want the government to take immediate action and designate microbeads as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This would then allow the federal government to regulate, phase out or eliminate the use of microbeads used or produced in Canada.

I am sure all of us in the House want a clean and healthy environment. We want to ensure the ongoing recreational fishery in Canada and the safety of fish and other aquatic species.

The motion before us would also make a level playing field for businesses that want to do the right thing but feel they are at a competitive disadvantage if their competitors do not take the same action. The government can clearly take the competition out of this situation by regulating microbeads and identifying them as a toxin. We want the government to assume its federal responsibility as a steward of our environment and take action to eliminate these toxins. I know this might be difficult for the Conservatives, because their record on the environment has not been a good one.

They have shut down the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; they withdrew funding for the Canadian Environmental Network; they have muzzled, fired, or intimidated government scientists; they have cut nearly $3 billion and up to 5,000 jobs from science-based departments, including scientific research positions and programs for monitoring air, water, and wildlife; they have gutted environmental assessments and legislation, and greased the wheels for big resource development, with little environmental oversight or scrutiny.

In my own area, the Humber River was removed from protection from the Navigation Protection Act. This is something that, working with my colleague from York South—Weston, we are trying to redress and get that protection reinstated because the Humber River is essential to so much of the watershed in the region north of Toronto and in the Toronto area. It is something we take very seriously.

The environment minister, so far, has responded by saying that this is a waste management issue that should be dealt with by the province. We hope that the federal government will look seriously at this and take a different stance. We need to get microbeads put on the toxic list for protection under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and to define a substance as toxic:

a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that

(a) have or may have an immediate or longterm harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;

(b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or

(c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

New Democrats believe that these microbeads certainly qualify.

Under CEPA, both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health are responsible for developing a list of substances that must be assessed in a timely manner to determine if they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic. This list is known as the Priority Substances List. It is a requirement that substances on this list be assessed within five years of their addition to the list. Environment Canada and Health Canada have a legal obligation to determine if these PSL substances are toxic, as defined in section 64 of the act. Toxic is defined in terms of risks that substances pose to the environment or to human health.

I should say that some businesses have been trying to do their part. While Environmental Defence has been calling on the federal government to ban microbeads in consumer products, at least 21 companies around the world that produce or carry cosmetics and personal care products have made some level of commitment to phase out microbeads in their products and not carry products containing them. This is significant.

Internationally, the Dutch parliament is promoting a European ban on microplastics in cosmetics and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a binational coalition of more than 100 mayors, is calling on companies to phase out the use of microbeads by 2015.

Companies are already doing this or have done this. The Body Shop said:

As part of our commitment to help save the planet, we’ll be phasing out microbeads from all of our products by 2015.

Johnson & Johnson said:

We’ve already begun the phase out of polyethylene microbeads in our personal care products. We have stopped developing new products containing plastic microbeads.

Colgate-Palmolive is working on this as well. A number of businesses are doing this.

In summary, Canadians have a right to expect that basic health protection is the utmost priority of their federal government, preventing microbeads from getting into our major water sources, when that is so easily preventable. Remember that the Great Lakes are the biggest freshwater body in the world and these essential sources of our fresh water need to be kept free and clear of toxins. This seems like a basic responsibility of the federal government, and I would expect every colleague in the House to do his or her part and support this motion. Let us get rid of these toxins, clean up our Great Lakes, and protect the people of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. It is worth noting that it appears all members of the House are supportive of today's motion.

It is important to recognize that in the United States already one state has declared microbeads out of bounds. It will no longer have microbeads. Even in Canada, the Province of Ontario is actually looking at this, from what I understand. A private member's bill has the government looking at banning microbeads.

There is a sense of a need for us to demonstrate some leadership at the national level. We do not necessarily have to recreate the wheel. One of the ways we could do that is to possibly work with other stakeholders, in particular our provinces. I cite the Province of Ontario as an example. We could see if there is something we could do that would have a more rapid response in dealing with this issue. Would the member not agree with that?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, a couple of states have already banned the use of microbeads, and a third one has a proposal in the works.

Of course the role of the federal government is to work with all provinces and territories, as well as first nations, but we have a clear role to play at the federal level. It is within the purview of the federal government to define toxins. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we have the responsibility to do that.

In this case, it seems pretty clear this is a toxin, and it could easily be avoided, prevented at the source through substitution. That makes the most sense. I believe and hope there is support from all parties in the House for the notion that the federal government should take action and identify microbeads as a toxin.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

A Conservative member surprised me earlier, if the Conservatives can still surprise anyone. He criticized us for lacking judgment, because we decided to talk about this extremely important issue. This is just further proof positive of how little importance the Conservatives attach to the environment, since the issue we are discussing today pertains to the environment and something that is harmful to our environment.

Does my colleague see this as an important issue and does she think that protecting the environment should be a priority for the Canadian government?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I hope the Conservatives will support this motion. So far, they have sent a clear message that they are fighting a war on the environment. They did away with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and eliminated funding to the Canadian Environmental Network. They have slashed nearly $3 billion and cut about 5,000 jobs from science-based departments. They have stripped environmental protections. I could go on and on. That is worse than doing nothing. I hope they will change their tune today and really start looking at the environment as a priority. The environment needs to be a priority, not only for us, but also for the government and all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the environment; the hon. member for Ahuntsic, public security; and the hon. member for Montcalm, pensions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly, microbeads meet this test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be a little more specific with this question than I was with the previous one. We have at least one province I am aware of, the province of Ontario, that actually has private member's legislation dealing with the possibility of banning microbeads.

Would the member agree that the federal government could demonstrate some leadership on this by working with the provinces to see if we could move more quickly than what is being suggested in the opposition motion we are debating today?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

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

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

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his important speech on reducing this source of pollution by banning the use of microbeads. As my colleague said, 21 companies around the world have already banned the use of microbeads.

Why is it important that the federal government legislate to create a framework to ban companies from using microbeads?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

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

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

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, this motion calls for courage on the part of the government. We want to save our ecosystems for future generations. We know that the Conservatives would much rather help out their friends in the petrochemical industry, because a discussion about plastic is really a discussion about the petroleum industry.

However, we are just asking them to make a bit of an effort because there are other options. It is possible to show political courage and take the initiative to eliminate things that are bad for the environment.

Can my colleague tell us why it is so important to pass this motion not just for oceans, but for all ecosystems? All it takes to change things is leadership and courage.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address this particular motion. As we have heard, there is a great deal of support for the motion put forward. I would anticipate, as others have anticipated, that the motion will receive unanimous support from all members of the House. That is what I am expecting, having listened to what people have had to say about it.

Canadians want us to be more progressive in our approach to the environment. Listening to a number of the speeches, from all sides of the House, I had some thoughts with regard to what could have been, if I can put it that way.

One member of the New Democratic Party spent a great deal of time talking about killer whales, or orcas, and how important they are to his community. What issue would the member want to talk about if we could choose an issue? If I were to canvass my constituents, the response I would likely get would be water management. I have heard members across the way and beside me talk about the importance of a national strategy on water.

I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of local candidates for the next election. There is a lot of talk at the door, whether it is in urban or rural Manitoba, about the need for a national water strategy.

In virtually every discussion we have had here today, the importance of water and the creatures within the water have been talked about at great length. That is not to take anything away from the importance of microbeads. Just recently, a member of the Ontario legislature, Marie-France Lalonde, the MPP for Ottawa—Orléans, actually brought forward a private member's bill proposing to ban this particular product.

The issue of plastic microbeads would seem to have taken on quite a bit of momentum. We have heard that there is at least one American state that has banned them. We hear that other jurisdictions have gone a long way in looking at how they could be banned.

In Canada there is at least one province that wants to move forward, and I hope it is successful. I will go into some of the things that have occurred in my home province in regard to environmental issues related to water and water management.

I was given an article. It was amazing in terms of the recognition given to the MPP for Ottawa—Orléans for her idea. It is from different types of stakeholders who applaud the action, recognizing that this is a direction we should be moving toward.

I started off, even before I was made aware of this, talking about the importance of working with others in trying to make a difference on the issue. I did that because of my personal experience.

In the Manitoba legislature six to eight years ago, phosphates in dishwasher soap were an issue. I can remember going to the store with the then leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party, Jon Gerrard, and we had a package of phosphate-free dishwasher soap in our hands. Members might call it a a photo op. We were calling on the province to take action to ban phosphates in dishwasher soap. Unfortunately, we were we not able to get that private member's idea accepted by the government at the time, but only a few years ago, when other provinces and the federal government worked together, it ultimately led to the banning of phosphates in dishwasher soap at the residential level. Therefore, working together to achieve something that Canadians want does make a difference.

I brought up that particular example because legislation was proposed by a Liberal member of the Ontario legislature, and the ball is in Premier Wynne's court in terms of how they are going to respond to this particular piece of legislation. I think it behooves all of us to lend our support to this initiative. In fact, I would suggest that there is a role for the federal government in raising this issue with its provincial counterparts. If that were to happen, I would argue, we would be more effective at dealing with the issue at hand and be able to provide the people of our country with what they want, which is a better, healthier environment. It would be virtually at no cost, because it would be driven through industry. I look at it as a wonderful opportunity.

The motion before us talks about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. If we reflect back on the creation of that act back in 1999, we will find that there was a great sense of co-operation between the then prime minister, Jean Chrétien, and the federal minister responsible, along with the different provincial ministers, in coming up with legislation that would ultimately be used as tool to improve our environment. That did not come out of the blue, from nowhere. It was an idea that was talked about, I suspect, for a couple of years prior, and it involved a great deal of consultation that allowed the Chrétien government to work with the provinces, understanding that waterways do not recognize provincial or international boundaries, that our oceans are accessed by countries around the world, and that we needed to work with others in order to make a difference.

I like to think that at the end of the day the Chrétien government recognized the importance of working together in bringing forward legislation and at the same time recognized that the national government has a leadership role to play in dealing with environmental issues, such as the one we have here today.

However, it is not exclusive to the federal government; in fact, there is a role that can also be played by other levels of government.

Again I will refer to my home province of Manitoba. I made reference to the dishwasher soap, but I can recall another initiative that involved the banning of plastic bags. I do not know how many times I have seen these white plastic bags floating in rivers or all over our environment, caught in trees as the winds blow. These non-biodegradable bags stick around for years to come, and they are a threat to our environment. In Manitoba there are municipalities that have actually taken the initiative to ban the plastic bag.

That issue again I know, because I have talked about it at the provincial level. The then leader of the Liberal Party raised the issue, but for whatever reasons, whether it was Gary Doer or Greg Selinger, they never bought into it. They never brought in the legislation that was required to deal with some of those environmental issues.

The point is that no one government in Canada can say that it has the sole responsibility. Each level of government has the choice to demonstrate leadership or not. There have been examples that have been disappointing at the provincial level, but one of the best examples I could give in regard to the federal government is the Experimental Lakes Area.

Members will recall how important the ELA is, not only to the province of Manitoba but to all of Canada, and I would suggest it goes beyond Canada's borders. Someone talked about $3 million being what it takes for this House to operate for one day. That $3 million would have kept the ELA going for years. It is still there, and I will explain why it is still there. It is not because of the current Conservative government.

We recognize what the ELA has done. It protects our waterways. It does the research that is so vitally important. We often talk about the importance of science. The ELA is one of the leading research bodies dealing with fresh water. Freshwater is a commodity that is in high demand, and it will continue to be in high demand well into the future. Some of the greatest threats to freshwater are pollution and industrial waste.

We have mining tailings in northern Manitoba that are so bad that I can again recall Jon Gerrard bringing into the Manitoba legislature a glass of what appeared to be red water. That is what mining tailings have done in, I believe, Kississing Lake. I might not be 100% accurate on that, but it is right in that region that water has turned red because of mining tailings. There are so many things that we could and should be doing. The challenge is for us to recognize that we each have a role to play.

If I go back to what I think is really important, at the end of the day I do not think anyone inside this chamber is going to be voting against this particular motion.

I hope the piece of legislation in the province of Ontario continues to move in the direction of banning plastic microbeads. I hope it does that.

Personally, I think it would be a mistake if I did not at the same time emphasize how important it is that we deal with water management as a whole and emphasize the importance of having a national strategy.

Every year in the province of Manitoba, water is a major issue. Every year it seems there are certain areas of the province that are in need of attention because we do not have the water management plan that we should have as a provincial entity, let alone as a national entity. The federal government needs to recognize that it has a stronger leadership role in dealing with water management. It is not just the Province of Manitoba. The federal government has a stronger leadership role in dealing with water management issues.

The water flowing into the Red River, which ultimately ends up in Lake Winnipeg, comes in good part from the United States. It crosses an international boundary line. To what degree has the Government of Canada been dealing with that issue? To what degree is the federal government prepared to work with the Province of Manitoba in dealing with some of the other issues related to flooding?

Last weekend I met with members of our first nations community. We still have first nations members from certain regions who have been displaced for over two years. The NDP government diverted water out of the Assiniboine, which ultimately flooded homes on some reserve lands, which forced the relocation of some first nations members into the city of Winnipeg. Even though the provincial government might have forgotten about them and the federal government tends to want to ignore the issue, the issue is still there. There is a need to deal with it. Whether it is the federal government or the provincial government, the community is feeling frustrated because we do not have that very important national water strategy.

The Government of Canada, in particular the minister responsible and the Prime Minister, should be making it a higher priority. If that were to occur, I suspect they would gain considerable support from the public as a whole. It is fair for Canadians to have an expectation on the issue of water management and water resource development.

Our farming communities have a huge interest in it, as well as residents in the city of Winnipeg and all of our municipalities. I do not want to limit it. In many of the speeches I heard today, people talked about the Great Lakes. Lake Winnipeg might not be attached to them, but it is a very important lake also. Citizens of Winnipeg and beyond are very much concerned about that lake.

The need to deal with microbeads is something that industry itself is trying to deal with, with a limited amount of success. I suspect it is only a question of time before we see some form of banning, or it will no longer be an issue. However, that does not mean we should be dragging our feet on it. There are initiatives the government could be taking that would ultimately achieve what Canadians expect of the government, which is strong leadership that could actually make a difference on environmental issues.

This would be almost a no-brainer if the government had the desire and the will. The government should, first and foremost, look at ways in which it could change federal legislation and also work with other stakeholders to see if this issue could be dealt with in a more timely fashion. I think Canadians expect us to do that.