Debates of March 24th, 2015

Public Transportation

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has always considered the safety and security of Canadians a priority and it is a responsibility we take very seriously. This extends to those who keep our communities moving, our transit workers.

There are roughly 2,000 reported assaults on public transit employees every year in Canada. Many of these attacks occur while the vehicle is in motion, putting public safety at grave risk. This is unacceptable.

Could the minister tell the House how our government has taken a stand against such unacceptable behaviour?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his hard work in this place.

Thanks to a private member's bill that passed with the backing of our Conservative government, public transit operators, including taxi cab drivers, now have added legal protection from assaults. With the passing of Bill S-221, a court will have to consider it an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing if the victim of an assault is a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duties. This means that finally those who commit threats or assaults on our transit operators will face a penalty that matches the seriousness of the crime.

Canadians can trust our government to hold criminals to account and to stand up for hard-working Canadians.

Pensions

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a new study has confirmed that the government is heading in the wrong direction by thinking that it can solve the sustainability problem of the old age security program by raising the retirement age to 67. The University of Montreal study shows that that decision will only increase inequalities between seniors, forcing greater dependence on private savings, which will have a negative effect on the quality of life of poorer seniors.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to correct the situation by focusing more on tax incentives and work time management to keep people working longer, as the FADOQ network has been calling for, rather than making poor people even poorer?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we want to help pensioners and anyone who chooses to work longer.

First of all, we lowered taxes for all seniors. By being able to keep more of their money, seniors have more freedom and choices regarding their finances. Second, we created the tax-free savings account, which allows seniors, and in fact all Canadians, to save money and get better returns without paying income tax to the federal government. This gives seniors independence and allows them to invest for the future.

Sealing Industry

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a woman from Newfoundland and Labrador recently had her sealskin purse confiscated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection because seals are on the endangered species list in the United States. She is now forced to pay a $250 fine for trying to take her purse across the border.

Seal products are becoming more and more popular. It has been documented and scientifically proven that the northwest harp seal population is healthy and abundant and is not an endangered species.

Could the minister tell the House the last time the government has had discussions with American officials with regards to having seals removed from the endangered species list in the United States? Will the minister ask the United States to remove this ban immediately?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, this government remains rock solid in its support for the Canadian seal industry. We know that sealing provides much needed jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians in coastal communities and right across the north. That is why we challenged the EU's unfair ban on Canadian seal products and why we are working with the EU to come into compliance with the results of our appeal.

We will continue to stand up for rural communities and for sealers.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to the issue of microbeads and, in particular, I would like to focus on their effects in the Great Lakes.

As members know, my beautiful riding of Mississauga South borders on Lake Ontario. I want to talk about a very important issue, in fact, there is almost nothing more vital to our country than fresh, clean and healthy water. The Great Lakes account for 20% of the world's fresh surface water supply, so they are among the most important water resources in the world.

Mississauga is home to one of the best salmon and trout fisheries in North America. Enthusiasts travel to south Mississauga from afar in search of memorable fishing experiences. Charters are booked by the hundreds each year to fish for rainbow trout, brown trout, lake trout, chinook salmon and coho salmon.

Atlantic salmon returned recently to the Credit River, which also runs through the beautiful riding of Mississauga South and into Lake Ontario. Atlantic salmon returned recently to spawn for the first time in over 100 years, thanks to the efforts of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the provincial ministry of natural resources, plus over 40 sponsors and partners for their commitment to “bring back the salmon”, the colloquial name for the Lake Ontario Atlantic salmon restoration program, which is an important part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Lake Ontario Basin.

Frankly, people are often shocked to learn that some of the best salmon fishing in North America takes place in Lake Ontario. In fact, Atlantic salmon are an important part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Lake Ontario basin. Their ancestors migrated from salt water in the post-glacial period and adapted to fresh water inland. They require cool fast waters and clean habitat. That is exactly what we are talking about today. Their survival is solid evidence that a healthy aquatic system is needed.

Before I talk specifically about the Great Lakes, I want to talk about the Credit Valley Conservation authority which works very hard in the Peel region. In fact, it produced a report last year on this issue of microbeads and microplastics. I know it was mentioned earlier today in this debate that microplastics were small pieces of plastic ranging from 0.355 milimetres to 5 milimetres in diameter. They do not biodegrade, which is the problem. They are typically found in consumer care products such as facial scrubs, body washes and toothpaste.

However, it is important to note that few waste water facilities have the capability to filter these products, which is why we find them in our water systems. Consumers use about 2.4 milligrams of microplastics per person per day, which translates to an estimated 28.9 tonnes of plastic that could potentially enter the Great Lakes every year, given that there are 33 million residents of the Great Lakes Basin.

Research has been done by Dr. Sherri A. Mason of the State University of New York. She first brought this issue vis-à-vis the Great Lakes to our attention in the year 2012, noting that there was a range of 600 to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre in Lake Ontario. Fish, those salmon I talked about, waterfowl and other wildlife can ingest plastic. This affects the health of fish and can even result in their death.

Microplastics can themselves absorb and transport other pollutants such as carcinogens and flame retardants, which can then be ingested by nearby wildlife or even humans.

I guess we could say the studies are in a new phase, and other jurisdictions have taken some action. We have heard that as well earlier in the debate. To continue with Dr. Mason's studies, I will say that she began by studying lakes Huron, Erie, and Superior, finding the greatest concentration of these microplastics in Lake Erie. She continued her research and expanded the study into Lake Ontario, expecting to find microplastics in greater concentrations because Lake Erie flows into Lake Ontario. The preliminary results suggested that Lake Ontario did have the highest concentration of microplastics, with up to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre. To date, only one other plastics study has been conducted in the Great Lakes, and to my knowledge, no similar studies have been conducted in the tributaries to the Great Lakes.

Therefore, the environmental impacts are great. Fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife can ingest plastics, which can cause internal blockage, dehydration, and even death. Ecosystem and habitat destruction is possible due to microplastic accumulation on beach shores. Of course we have beaches in south Mississauga, so the concentrations can be found there. Microplastics can themselves absorb and transport other pollutants, which wildlife and humans could possibly ingest, and they then bioaccumulate in the food chain.

I will also mention that some companies have promised to voluntarily phase out these plastic beads. Others have yet to make that commitment and want to see more research. We have heard that Illinois is the only state that has banned them; possibly New Jersey may have followed suit as well.

I can assure members that Canada and our environment minister are devoted to this issue, understand the importance of it, and will continue to collaborate with other jurisdictions, such as U.S. states, on this issue.

With my remaining time, I would like to talk about the water quality of the Great Lakes in particular, because our government has not only worked with the United States but has really accomplished a lot in this area.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, in particular, played an important role guiding actions between the two countries. It focuses on maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes on both sides of the border. I know that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission also does a great job on this as well.

This binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, first established in 1972, was amended in 2012 to include strengthened measures to anticipate, prevent, and comprehensively address issues impacting water quality and the aquatic ecosystem health of the lakes. Over the past 40 years, levels of priority toxic substances in the Great Lakes have declined by as much as 98%. We are talking about PCBs, mercury, alkyl-lead, as well as dioxins, furans, and HCBs.

I know I need to wrap up. I am trying to prioritize, but it is difficult. I will try to mention what I wanted to say in an answer to one of the questions.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in support of this important bill, which would protect our environment and water systems. I look forward to questions.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation on this important issue by my colleague across the way.

During questions and answers earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment talked about this being dealt with through some sort of federal-provincial meeting that might take place this summer. I am not sure why that is necessary.

I would ask this for the member. Why do the Conservatives not simply use the priority substances list provisions of the CEPA 1999 to deal with this issue?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the parliamentary secretary said earlier about this meeting. We certainly have every confidence that the environment ministers meeting will delve into this important issue and will deal with it in a way that they think is best. I know the issue is taken seriously by the current Minister of the Environment, as well as this government's previous minister of the environment, who also spoke to the motion today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question in regard to the whole issue of microbeads and the fact that industry as a whole also has a responsibility here. A good corporation takes our environment into consideration.

Canadians as a whole are far more sensitive today than they ever have been in regard to what they can do to improve the conditions of our environment. Equally, I want to emphasize how important it is that corporations as a whole should have a better understanding and be more sensitive to consumer needs but also take into consideration the environment.

Maybe the member could provide some comment in terms of what she feels or what is the government's perspective in terms of corporate responsibility in dealing with environmental issues, and this is a good example of that.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree, as I believe this government would, that corporate responsibility in matters related to the environment is indeed very important. In fact, I am always delighted to hear about partnerships and collaborations between organizations like, for example, the Credit Valley Conservation, the Region of Peel, and corporate sponsors. There are many, as well as even the province's ministry of natural resources. OPG has worked with a number of companies in the Mississauga area, for example, because we all understand the importance of keeping our environment clean and healthy for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving with the member for Mississauga South on the environment committee, and I had the honour of visiting her constituency a couple of times.

A project that was funded in her constituency, the Rattray Marsh project, was funded under our recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. Our study of the Great Lakes water quality, spearheaded by the member for Mississauga South, showed that the value of wetlands was enormous in terms of improving water quality and conserving biodiversity.

I would like the member to talk about the Rattray Marsh project in her constituency, which is contributing so greatly to improving fish-spawning habitat and water quality in her area.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that question and for coming to south Mississauga to visit the Rattray Marsh and to see the work that is being done. In particular, I would like to thank the member for his promotion and support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' recreational fisheries conservation partnerships fund, which has helped, I believe twice now, to fund the wetland rehabilitation efforts in the Rattray Marsh.

This is an area at the very heart of my riding, a treasure located on Lake Ontario, where constituents and other people come from far and wide to enjoy our beautiful surroundings and nature, and where families gather and people ride their bikes and take walks. In fact, I even had the honour and pleasure of hosting our Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, who also came to see some of the wonderful work that is being done there.

In addition to that fund, the national wetland conservation fund also funded some wetland rehabilitation, because it is very important to have that clean water right in our own neighbourhoods and even in urban areas.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise and speak to this motion that is so important to the people whom I represent. On an island in the Pacific, we are increasingly inundated with microplastics. Microbeads are a problem that could be regulated if the government had any interest in showing the leadership available to it under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

I will talk about the legislative provisions that are available in a moment. I would first like to address why this is such an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia. I am grateful to be able to do so.

I want to speak first from the perspective of the Pacific Ocean. About a month ago on CBC News, there was a story that caused a lot of consternation in my part of the world. It said that new research showed tiny pieces of plastic could pose a major threat to the waters off the B.C. coast.

An article last year in a learned journal, Marine Pollution Bulletin, was written by a number of scientists, including Dr. Peter Ross. Dr. Ross is one of those people who no longer work for the federal government. He is one of the long list of scientists who no longer work there since this government came to power. Nevertheless, he managed to get an important position with the Vancouver Aquarium. He has collaborated with colleagues at the University of Victoria, like Jean-Pierre Desforges and Moira Galbraith, who works as well for the Institute of Ocean Sciences in DFO, and Neil Dangerfield. The article documents for the first time the problem of microplastics in the Pacific marine environment. It is very disturbing.

They found that microplastic contamination exists not just off the built environment but also up in Queen Charlotte Sound, in an area with little or no industry and very little population. That shows this problem is spreading. I will come back to their analysis in a moment.

Very simply, Dr. Ross has said:

[We've] seen these impact with photos of animals with their stomachs filled with plastics that are visible to the human eye. What we have not seen are pictures of the microscopic creatures at the bottom of the food chain and what plastics might be found in their bellies.

He says that microplastics are being ingested by a critical aquatic food source, namely plankton, and killing them. He goes on to say:

It fills up the stomach and they feel like they've got a belly full of food, but they have no nutrition associated with that. It's simply a bit of plastic.

This is obviously of great concern to the scientists in our part of the world and to people who worry about the future of our aquatic environment. We have always known there were harmful effects from large plastic debris, but what they have looked at are the effects on the biota of such things as ingestion, as pointed out by Dr. Ross, leaching of toxic additives, and desorption of persistent bioaccumulative and toxic substances. Small plastic fragments are available to organisms at the base of the food web, as they may be the same size range as natural food items.

The impact, in short, is completely unknown. It has spread up to Queen Charlotte Sound, based on, for example, wave actions that might have caused that, and there is only speculation as to what the ultimate impact may be. That is why scientists are blowing the whistle and saying the government has to act. We hear today that ministers may talk about it at a federal-provincial conference.

When people ask me what an NDP government would do, if ever it had the power to change the environmental legislation in the face of what this government has done, I answer very simply. We would simply restore the excellent legislation that this government has repealed, and unlike what the Liberals did, we would enforce that legislation. A good example is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which is what this motion wishes to trigger, if the House were to agree to deal with the microbead problem.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, makes pollution prevention the cornerstone of national efforts to reduce toxic substances in the environment. It is an amazing piece of legislation. It is very lengthy at 356 sections long, with 12 parts and 6 schedules, and it has a very ambitious agenda, including addressing toxic substances, such as the one at issue with microbeads.

Under section 64 of that act is the ability to deal with toxic substances. Toxic substances are defined by risk as follows:

...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 long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment...

It is all there. All one has to do is work with the scientific committee and put it on the scheduled list of toxic substances, and we can deal with it. We can deal with it in an aggressive fashion. We think that is what is required. It is really quite simple. If it is a toxic substance, the government can regulate it, phase it out, or eliminate it.

It is so ironic that we have the industry wishing to take action, acknowledging that there is a problem and crying out for some federal leadership, and what we hear from the other side is that maybe we should have a conference to talk about it with the provinces. Why? They have already scheduled dozens of substances. Industry itself acknowledges that it is a problem. Scientists are saying that we have to deal with it, and the federal government sits around and talks about maybe having a chitchat with the provinces.

That is not leadership, and it is not using the tools that are available to the government under this legislation, which is excellent, would that there were people enforcing it, but that is another subject; would that they had not got rid of so many scientists, but that is another problem. Some of them still work. They could not get jobs in government. They were turfed out of the DFO but nevertheless found jobs elsewhere to continue their research, because they care about our natural environment, in sharp, contradistinction to the government of the day.

Putting it on the priority substances list, as has been done many times before, would allow these toxic substances, such as microbeads, to be regulated. It is not rocket science. The fact that it has been done so far in other contexts suggests that it can be done here as well.

Why is the government not acting? I have no idea. The Body Shop says that it should. Unilever says that it should. Johnson & Johnson started to phase out polyethylene microbeads, because they are not necessary. We used to use natural products to do what these microbeads do, but now they have been replaced with these other products, which are wreaking havoc, apparently, in the environment. There is Colgate-Palmolive. All of these industries understand the problem and are taking action.

South of the border, as was indicated earlier, Illinois has banned the production, manufacture, or sale of personal care products containing these plastic microbeads.

We are lucky in Canada. Unlike the United States, which seems to be doing this on a state-by-state basis, we have a statute. We have a great statute. We have a 21st-century statute called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It is alive and well, but forgotten, it seems, by the Conservative government.

Action is very simple. We have so many complicated issues involving the natural environment. Would that they all had such simple solutions as this.

The Minister of the Environment apparently wrote, in response to a number of mayors in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, that the government has concerns about microbeads. In a letter dated January 3, apparently she wrote that as part of the scientific review process, it would consider “proposing the issue of microplastics as a possible priority issue to be addressed”. Hooray. The Conservatives recognize that it can be done. That is a good step.

However, she then went on and said, rather strangely, that “this is a plastic waste management/disposal issue” and should be referred to the province. No, it should not. One wonders where the Conservatives get their legal advice. It is right there in the statute. She seems to get it, but then seems to suggest, as the government is today, that we should just give it to a little conference to talk about.

We have the tools. We have a need. We should just get on with the job and deal with the pressing problem of microbeads in our environment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member put a great deal of emphasis on maybe not consulting or working with the provinces.

I have a specific example for him. A number of years ago, Jon Gerrard was the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. I had a press conference about phosphates in dishwasher soap. We honestly felt that this was something the province could ban. We pushed the government on it. What ended up happening was that there was a great deal of discussion, from what I understand, in the provinces and Ottawa, which led, just a few years ago, to the banning of phosphates in residential dishwasher soap.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on the fact that the provinces have a role. In his comments he made reference to the one American state that has already banned microbeads. If the federal government chooses not to act, there are certain things the provinces themselves can do if they are prepared to take the initiative. Quite often, if a provincial jurisdiction takes the initiative, it fills the gap until we get stronger national leadership.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, phosphates are one example of products that can be dealt with by both the federal and provincial governments, to some degree.

Of course, most environmental water contaminants go across borders. My friend would be aware of that in the context of the Manitoba-Ontario border and the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border. That is why the government decided at the federal level, after much federal-provincial deliberation, to pass the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Very sensitive as it is to federal-provincial issues, it talks very much throughout the statute about the need for consultation with the provinces and recognition of the limited national concern power of the federal government to do the job.

The problem I have with provincial action in this context, although I am pleased that the B.C. NDP has a petition on this issue asking for action, is that in a coastal environment, which is so much a federally regulated area, it is very difficult to see how a province could play a meaningful role. Cross-provincial is a problem. Coastal is a problem. Therefore, I think we need to address this nationally.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I paid attention quite carefully to my hon. colleague's great speech on this issue. I know that in his riding, this is a major concern.

In our own self-interest as a species, in our own kind of egotism, we tend to forget that we share this planet and this universe with a lot more creatures than we sometimes keep in mind. Some of those are endangered. It is my understanding that the orca whale is endangered.

What impact do these plastics have on this endangered species? Once a species is gone, it is gone. Irreparable damage is done to creation.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague would have something to say about how these plastics put a certain species at risk.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I opened my speech with a reference to plankton.

Plankton may seem a long way from orcas, but of course, it is not. If the little creatures that are plankton are finding themselves ingesting microbeads and are unable to survive, and invertebrates that perhaps eat them are also ingesting slightly larger microplastics, and they cannot survive, it does not take a scientist to understand that the species at the top of the ladder will have difficulty with survival. That is what causes concern.

There has been talk of the decreasing population of seagulls on the west coast. People do not know why that is the case. Of course, there is speculation that microbeads may be the problem there as well. The whole web of life is being affected at such a micro level. However, I think it is all interconnected. Canadians understand now that the environment is all interconnected in the web of life. That is why the government should stand up and take the action available to it under its legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak about this important issue. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Victoria, for sharing his time with me. I also want to say how proud I am of my colleague, the member for Halifax, who sponsored this motion, which reads as follows:

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

That is a fairly clear-cut request and is something the government could move on. The evidence is clear on the damage of these products. The industry itself is recognizing the fact that these are harmful additions to our oceans, lakes, and the environment and is doing something about. Far be it for the government, I would suggest, not to recognize that it is time for it to take, in this case, frankly, not major action but a significant action in terms of doing something about the environment.

I must say, though, that I am not overly optimistic. We have heard the government say that representatives are going to attend an international conference to talk about it and see what happens. For the past nearly four years, I have seen the government gut the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. I have seen it cut hundreds of millions of dollars from agencies like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the science section of the Department of the Environment, money that funds the science that would determine the links and the impact on the environment and marine habitat and the consequences of that for all of us.

I have seen this, and it continues to cause me concern. The latest are the regulatory changes the government made to the Fisheries Act to allow salmon farmers to use toxic substances in the conduct of their sea farming. We know that there is already a company on the east coast that has faced serious charges. It was forced to pay significant fines for having done just that. Now the government has weakened its ability to protect that marine habitat and the environment so that the operators of open net-pen salmon farms can continue to conduct their business with almost no regard for the traditional fishery and fish habitat.

I must say that while I am standing to speak in support of this motion and am encouraging the government to follow through and do something about this, in light of the overwhelming evidence, I am nonetheless somewhat pessimistic about it.

When it comes to our lakes, rivers, and oceans, there are a lot of things that need to be done to change or reduce effects on those environments, whether it be lowering water levels, rising temperatures, or acidification. We may be, in fact, only able to mitigate the effects. In the case of microbeads and the impact they have on the environment, we can simply stop their production. We can stop them at their source and not have to deal with the introduction of these substances into our environment.

Let us be clear. We know that plastic is a serious concern and a contaminant in the world's oceans. Especially problematic are small manufactured pieces of plastic called microbeads, which are used in consumer products such as facial cleansers, shower gels and toothpastes. These microbeads persist in the environment and cause harm to fish and other wildlife.

There have been outrageous concentrations of microbeads found in the waters of the Great Lakes, particularly downstream from major cities in the sediment of the St. Lawrence River. As has been said by others, microplastics and microbeads can be consumed by a variety of marine life, including fish harvested for human consumption. They can cause asphyxiation or a blockage in organs in marine animals. Chemical pollutants tend to accumulate and persist on microplastics, which could be transferred to animals ingesting the plastic. What we need to do is simply stop them at the source.

I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Victoria a few weeks ago on ocean acidification. Our oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the increased CO₂ in the air. The oceans are just simply not able to handle it. We need to act. We need to recognize that climate change and CO₂ emissions are a problem and do something to control that. However, we also need to recognize that is having a real impact on our oceans and our marine environment. Again, I refer to the fact that there was skepticism being expressed at this conference among scientists and researchers about the failure of the federal government to recognize that these are problems and that it needs to step up the funding for science and research and begin to take steps in order to mitigate the impacts.

As I indicated earlier, the New Democrats want to take immediate action to designate microbead plastics as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which would then allow the federal government to regulate, phase out or eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada. We want a clean and healthy environment. It is something that we have stood and talked about in this House for many years, but certainly for the last four years as we have witnessed the onslaught, the attack, on our environment and our marine environment by the current Conservative government.

We want to ensure the ongoing recreational fishery and the safety of fish and other aquatic species. I fail to understand the contradictions that exist within the government caucus opposite. On the one hand it works to promote the recreational fishery and tries to ensure that the private sector non-profit groups that are out there working on cleaning up the habitat to promote the recreational fishery are supported yet dealing with an environmental issue like this, it is hesitant. It fails to follow through. It is those kinds of contradictions that perplex many of us here, and certainly many Canadians in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and beyond.

It is time we acted. It is time the government moved forward. We know what the problems and the impacts are. We know what the solution is. We need to join with the 21 companies around the world producing or carrying cosmetic and personal care products that have made some level of commitment to phase out microbeads in those products or stop carrying products containing them.

It seems that the government will only take leadership from the private sector. Here is an example. It is time the government got on board and started doing something about a serious problem affecting our environment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion that has been brought forward by the NDP today.

We have heard a lot about the oceans, but it is important that we recognize that there are many waterways throughout our great nation where there is a great deal of concern. I speak of Red River, which goes through the heart of Winnipeg, the Assiniboine, which hooks into the Red River and of course Lake Winnipeg. We do need to be more sensitive to what is actually going into our waterways.

I would ask the member just to give his thoughts on the previous question I had put forward. It is important where the national government can demonstrate leadership on an issue such as this that we act where we can. That is one of the reasons why we brought in the law back in 1999, to allow the federal government to take action where it can to do what Canadians want, and that is to do as much as possible to protect our environment and our waterways. He might want to provide comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The question was to the point that government must do what it can do, and I would suggest that is absolutely the case. The member is right. We are not just talking about the ocean. We are talking about lakes and rivers, waterways, marshes. We are talking about a marine habitat. We are talking about our environment.

This is an opportunity for the government responsible for the Environmental Protection Act of 1999 to do something, to designate this as a toxic substance, to list it and provide the opportunity for the private sector then to look to that as its guide and begin to take action to correct this problem. It is time to act. It is time for the federal government to act.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. It is urgent that we take action.

Nevertheless, that is not at all what we are seeing from the Conservatives. On January 3, Minister Aglukkaq answered a letter from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I would remind the hon. member that using the name of a minister or another member is not permitted.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right and I sincerely apologize.

In a letter dated January 3, the Minister of the Environment said that she would consider, and I quote, “proposing the issue of microplastics as a possible priority issue to be addressed”.

That could not be less clear. Does my colleague agree that urgent action is needed? The NDP has shown initiative. Once again, we are being proactive and constructive. We want to build a better Canada. That is what we are going to do in the coming months and after the election.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the urgent need for action and the way the Conservatives are dragging their feet on this issue.