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

Topics

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on such an important issue. I also want to thank my NDP colleague from Halifax for bringing this debate to the House of Commons today. She does excellent work. The proof is that this week she already moved a motion calling for an emergency debate on the Arctic ice, which is melting quite quickly, more quickly than ever. Unfortunately, the emergency debate was denied.

Today, at least, we are having a debate on the environment. I know that sustainable development and the environment are very important issues in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not see it this way, but to the NDP, these are key aspects to economic development.

We are talking here about plastic microbeads that end up in places like the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River near my riding, Drummond. We have a lot of questions about the risks this poses to our biodiversity and even to our own health.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and we recently conducted a study on the Great Lakes. We wanted to broaden that study to talk about climate change, water temperature, which also has an impact on our biodiversity and the ecosystem, as well as plastic microbeads. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. I am pleased that we are talking about this today because I think it is an extremely important issue.

Does my colleague agree with the NDP and also think that this is an extremely important issue and that we must act quickly, unlike the Conservatives, who are dragging their heels on this? We must act now. It is rather deplorable that the Conservatives did not act sooner. At least the NDP has a constructive approach, and that is why we moved this motion in order to do something constructive to deal with this issue.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my comments, I do not believe anyone in the chamber will vote against the motion before us. We will see when it comes to a vote.

The member made reference to climate change, the melting of the ice caps, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Other colleagues talked about the Pacific Ocean. There are also the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Winnipeg. As a province, Manitoba has 10,000-plus lakes and rivers. I believe Canada needs a national water strategy.

The Liberal Party supports the motion before us. It is a pretty straightforward motion. It would have been better maybe if it were in the form of a bill or something of that nature, but at the end of the day, we could do so much more, and we should not limit it. I am not trying to take away from the importance of the plastic microbeads.

I like to think of the bigger picture. In the bigger picture, we need to do a whole lot more in order to protect our environment and, in particular, our water. I do not believe we do enough or put enough emphasis on it. When I talk to many of my Liberal colleagues, they consistently say how important it is to have a water strategy. I know it is important to the leader of the Liberal Party and to Canadians. We should spend more time not only debating this in the House, but we should expect the government to take more action that would result in a better water strategy, everything from drinking water to fishing to those creatures that swim in our oceans and waterways.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his speech in support of this motion to eliminate the use of microbeads in consumer products.

I deplore the fact that the use of microbeads has increased since the 1990s, while successive Conservative and Liberal governments have watched this problem get worse. Furthermore, in 2009 and 2010, the Liberals supported Conservative budgets that undermined our environmental laws.

Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that the Liberals have now changed their tune and support a number of measures so that we can work together to improve our environment.

Does my colleague agree that the time has come for the Conservatives to develop a legislative framework so that all companies that want to decrease the use of microbeads and eliminate them from the industry across Canada and around the world are able to do so, and does he agree that this is necessary to ensure fair competition among companies?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to the member's comments in regard to why the Liberals did not act on this issue when they were in government.

The examples I cited, whether it is the plastic bags, or phosphate in dishwasher soap or the tailings from mining, were all NDP provincial government responsibilities and it failed miserably in dealing with them, one for which the federal government had to compensate. I know that because I was part of the caucus that actually pushed for the NDP to take some responsibility on the environment in relation to water, among other things.

When the member says the Liberals did not act, new products come on-stream all the time. There is no instant reaction. What we do know is that Jean Chrétien brought in legislation that, through co-operation and working with different provinces, allowed the federal government to play a stronger role. That was negotiated through stakeholders and provinces in recognition that water did not know boundaries, provincial or international.

Is there more that the Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin governments could have done? Sure, there is always more we could have done. At the end of the day, I am very comfortable with this issue and the way in which it has evolved.

If I wanted to make the issue of microbeads political, we just have to look at the province that has taken action on it today. It is not an NDP administration. I say that because of the manner in which the question was posed to me.

At the end of the day, the driving force on this should not necessarily be the political party; it should be the interest of protecting our environment and our waterways.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation by my hon. colleague, and I congratulate the NDP for bringing forward the motion on microbeads.

My colleague spoke about the broader need for a water strategy, and he alluded to the Experimental Lakes Area. We all know that sad story. Fortunately the Ontario government came to the rescue. We are talking about a priceless laboratory to help us with a water strategy. He did not have the chance to speak about it very much during his presentation, so I wonder if the member might touch on that.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very concerned about waterways. The St. Lawrence River is one of those about which he is no doubt concerned.

The ELA did research for fresh water. There was an opportunity to keep it going, but the federal government cut the resources to it. The Experimental Lakes Area and that project for research on fresh water was going to die. The federal government cut the funds. We are not talking about multiple millions of dollars. There was a cost factor to it, but the benefits far outweighed the costs. Premier Kathleen Wynne, of all people, came to the province of Manitoba's rescue by providing the necessary funds to keep the ELA going, and all of Canada will benefit from that.

The Conservative government dropped the ball. It was prepared to write it off. That would have been a tragic mistake had we lost the ELA. As I said, that is where we get the research and science. It is good thing at least one province was prepared to recognize that we could not afford to lose it.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is doing impressive work in her riding. I am sure that she will be re-elected in the next election in 2015, as will many New Democrats. In fact, we will be the next government come October.

In December 2014, an article in La Presse stated that some 270,000 tonnes of plastic are floating around in our planet's oceans. There are even such things as floating islands. This shows how big the plastic problem is, and we need to tackle it. That is not even counting what has sunk to the bottom of our rivers, the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. Recent studies have shown that the problem is getting worse and that we have to do something about it.

Once again, I thank and congratulate my colleague from Halifax, the environment critic, who is doing excellent work. This week, she asked for an emergency debate on the rapidly melting Arctic glaciers, which is a very serious phenomenon. They are melting at record rates. This is a huge concern in terms of global warming, which is hard to control. We have to do something about it; we cannot wait for the Conservatives to act. That is why New Democrats are leading the charge and coming up with constructive solutions and proposals. That is what we will continue to do once we form the government in October 2015.

Plastics are contaminating every ocean. The small pieces of manufactured plastic called microbeads are used in consumer goods such as face wash, shower gel and toothpaste. As a result, they are found in our waste water, and because our water treatment plants cannot filter them effectively, they then end up in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.

These plastic microbeads attract other pollutants, such as PCBs, which are even more dangerous. Because aquatic species that live in our ecosystem swallow them, they enter the food chain. That is very worrisome. What is more, they do not just float. They are also found in sediment, as I mentioned earlier. This is a problem that is getting worse, and we need to do something about it as quickly as possible.

Microbeads were first patented for use in cleaning products in 1972, but it was not until the 1990s that they began to be used on a much broader scale. It did not take long to see that this was becoming a problem. Some companies even voluntarily stopped using microbeads, which shows that the industry took action even before the Conservatives. The Conservatives are once again lagging behind on this issue.

Right now, waste water treatment plants cannot filter out the microbeads. It would be much too costly to have plants that could stop these microbeads from entering our marine ecosystem. That is why I am pleased to support the motion by my colleague from Halifax, who does an excellent job. The motion says:

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.

We are very pleased to support this motion. We are also happy to see that the other parties will follow the leadership that the NDP is once again showing here today. This example serves to demonstrate, once again, how we plan to govern beginning in October 2015.

In other words, we will take constructive action, and our proposals will improve both the economy and our environment in the context of sustainable development projects. We in the NDP are the only ones who can pride ourselves on being champions of sustainable development.

At the end of 2014, another article explained that recent studies had shown that plastic was posing a threat to the St. Lawrence. A team of researchers from McGill University discovered a new source of pollution in the St. Lawrence: plastic microbeads. The researchers found a high concentration of them in the sediments of the St. Lawrence.

As I was saying, microbeads are a real problem, not only in the Great Lakes, but also in the St. Lawrence. It is therefore crucial that we take action, and the NDP has moved this motion in order to help solve the problem, which has become a real scourge.

Microbeads can be mistaken for food by organisms living on the bottom of the St. Lawrence River, which are then eaten by fish. Biologist Philippe Archambault, of the Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski, pointed that out in the Radio-Canada report “Le fleuve menacé par le plastique”, on the threat that plastic poses to the river.

As I mentioned, and as Philippe Archambault did as well, the problem is made worse by the fact that these microbeads attract other chemical pollutants such as PCBs. This further pollutes our entire marine ecosystem and becomes part of our whole food chain. This is a concern for human consumption. As we know, and we have already talked about this, the scientific community believes that we must take action. This study shows how urgently action is needed. Other studies were conducted in the past. Consequently, we are pleased to support this motion, which demonstrates the NDP's leadership.

Companies such as Unilever, L'Oréal, Colgate-Palmolive and Johnson & Johnson are already leading the way. These manufacturers have begun tackling this problem either by stopping the manufacture of new products that contain microbeads or by altogether stopping the manufacture of such products.

This shows that action by the Canadian government is even more urgently needed. Companies that are acting of their own accord end up penalized in a way, compared to other companies that continue to harm the environment by using microbeads. When most of the industry wants to take action, all that is left is for the government to take action, and that is what is missing from the Conservatives. It is very disappointing.

In conclusion, I remind members how important it is to the New Democrats to consider future generations. We must not only think about today; we must also think about the future and what we will leave for our families.

I am thinking about my nephews, including Zacharie and Michaël, and my daughters, Ariane and Oriana. It is important to leave them a planet with a strong, sustainable economy, as well as a healthy, sustainable environment.

That is why it is important to take actions such as the one we are discussing today. I once again congratulate the member for Halifax for her excellent work and I thank the House for listening.

I hope that all members in the House will support this motion, as well as the other motions the NDP constructively presents in the House of Commons. I am very proud of them.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond, who does excellent work on the environment. From the beginning, he has been fighting for sustainable development and the environment.

I would like to know what he thinks about the comments made by the Minister of the Environment, who said she thought that microbeads could be a possible priority issue for the government. In light of everything the Conservatives have done to undermine the environment, such as abolishing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and eliminating all environmental protections and environmental assessments, what does the member think about the Minister of the Environment's intent or pseudo-intent?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. She put her finger on the problem and on the reality of the Conservatives' attitude.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and even the Minister of the Environment said that we should perhaps study the melting of the Artic ice.

As we said earlier, we requested an emergency debate to discuss this problem. We have to deal with climate change, but the Conservatives have done anything but. The Conservatives made Canada the only country to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. It is unimaginable, but they did it.

This is indicative of the Conservatives' attitude toward the environment. They think that protecting the environment will hurt the economy, but the opposite is true. Refusing to protect the environment will hurt the economy. Investing in renewable energy is good for a sustainable economy, and that is what will give Canada a bright future. That is what Canadians want. They deserve better. They deserve an NDP government that will work on developing a sustainable economy.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Drummond. He is one of the staunchest defenders of the environment of all my colleagues and all members of Parliament. He is thinking about future generations.

I have a question for him about the long-term effects of harmful plastics, such as microbeads, on the environment. Earlier he was talking about the food chain. Fish and micro-organisms eat these plastics and end up on our plate. The effects on the food chain in the medium and long terms are extremely harmful, and this also affects the health of those who fish in the Great Lakes and our waterways, especially in the summer.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to work with my colleagues from Compton—Stanstead and Sherbrooke. I was with them yesterday in their respective ridings. I met with their constituents, who told me how much they appreciate the work that their MPs do.

We need to think about future generations. I am a father and I know that the member for Compton—Stanstead is too. We are not working for ourselves but for our constituents and our children. That is what is important. That is why we are thinking about sustainable development. We are thinking about what we are going to leave for future generations.

We have to protect the environment while developing the economy. It can be done. It is possible to find a balance between the economy and sustainable development. We can have a low-carbon economy that is focused on researching and developing renewable resources. That is what we must do. In this regard, I would like to once again thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for his excellent work. That is what an NDP government will do beginning in October 2015. That is what Canadians deserve and that is what they will get in 2015.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we resume debate, I see the Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

Motion No. 17Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Vancouver Island North B.C.

Conservative

John Duncan ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Order for consideration of Ways and Means motion No. 17 be deemed read, the motion to concur deemed moved, the question deemed put, and the recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Motion No. 17Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Motion No. 17Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion No. 17Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Motion No. 17Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion No. 17Ways and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Agreed and so ordered.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to once again speak about the environment.

I am very pleased to support the motion that was moved by my colleague from Halifax, the NDP environment critic. She puts her heart and soul into protecting our environment. Again yesterday, she wanted to propose an emergency debate on the excessive melting of Arctic ice. The ice in the Arctic is melting very rapidly because of climate change. Unfortunately, the Conservatives denied the request for this debate. The member continues to speak out against a number of measures that affect the environment, measures passed by the Conservatives that undermine our environment, whether it be the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy or the gutting of all or almost all of our environmental protections. There is 1% left. The Conservatives did away with environmental assessments so that a number of projects could move forward without public consultation or oversight.

The member is an outstanding environment critic, and my colleague from Drummond, who is the deputy critic, also does a wonderful job. He works hard to protect our environment for future generations and to show the world that sustainable development and the economy go hand in hand and that companies are prepared to get on board. All that is missing is some political leadership from the Conservatives.

Today we are debating the following motion:

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.

Microbeads are toxic substances that are polluting our environment. They were patented to replace natural ingredients in beauty products, including face and body washes and toothpaste.

It is really troubling to think that these plastic substances are found in products that we put on our skin, in our toothpaste and in some other products. Multinational cosmetic companies should not play with our health, nor should they play with our environment. They should replace microbeads with the natural ingredients that were used prior to the 1990s.

Microbeads pose a real threat to the environment, and I will explain why during my speech, as many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have done. These microplastics are ingested by aquatic animals, including fish that are intended for human consumption. They therefore wind up in the food chain. They are toxic to our health, as well as to flora and fauna, but they allow companies to save a few pennies in the manufacturing of consumer products. That is completely unacceptable.

The worst part is that these tiny plastic fragments are not biodegradable. They accumulate and are transferred to animals that ingest them, and then we consume them.

Microbeads are the product of an industrial manufacturing philosophy that focuses only on profits, with no regard whatsoever for the environmental footprint. Cosmetic companies should take into account the impact that these ingredients have on the environment when they manufacture beauty products and other consumer products. Moreover, 21 countries around the world have already chosen to gradually eliminate microbeads from their products because they are aware of the negative effects those substances have. They need help from the government and legislation to ensure fair competition among all companies.

Many large corporations that care about the environment now employ life cycle analysis. What is life cycle analysis? It looks at the resources needed to manufacture a product and quantifies its potential impact on the environment. This standard is accepted by a vast network of companies and even has an ISO code. Companies that make cosmetics should use this analysis in manufacturing their products.

To encourage companies to adopt best practices, my colleague, the member for Halifax, suggested that this substance be included on the toxic substances list in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Why do we need to do that? We want Canadian companies to compete on a level playing field, as I said earlier. All companies, not just some of them, should follow the rules for respecting the environment. By banning microbeads in consumer products, we will ensure that all companies respect human health and the environment.

Passing this motion will enable companies to follow the example set by companies like The Body Shop that have pledged to eliminate microbeads from all of their products by the end of the year.

Also participating are Johnson & Johnson, Lush and Colgate-Palmolive. Microbeads are threatening the ecological health of the St. Lawrence. That is clear. Wastewater treatment plants cannot filter out microbeads because of their small size and buoyancy. This is affecting the river's plants and wildlife. Let us not forget that many sources of pollution are already affecting the health of the St. Lawrence. People in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, are well aware of that.

Every year, the river becomes more acidic. Seaway navigation brings in dangerous invasive marine species, and fish fertility rates are being affected by pollution. Moreover, global warming is exacerbating the effects of pollution and acidification of the river, not to mention that water levels in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes are falling year by year.

All these sources of pollution are affecting the flora and fauna of the St. Lawrence River and cost millions of dollars in water filtration and purification. We should not forget that the St. Lawrence River is a drinking water reservoir for an entire region of Canada. In Beauharnois, which is in my riding, an old cargo ship has been rusting since 2011 in Lac St-Louis, which feeds into the St. Lawrence. Our lax environmental legislation, which the government weakens with every budget, leave us powerless to do anything about these sources of pollution.

If these large vessels do not pose an immediate risk to the environment, they are left to deteriorate in public waters. However, their long-term presence has serious repercussions for the environment. There is also the economic impact of all this pollution. Sport fishermen are no longer catching trophy fish. This is the result of the gutting of environmental legislation by this Conservative government, which nonetheless calls itself the champion of sport fishing and hunting. However, the Conservatives do not see the contradiction.

In my region, ecotourism is one of the economic drivers threatened by pollution. Waterways are threatened by blue-green algae, another source of pollution created by products such as detergents and industrial soaps. Swimming, fishing and camping are all activities affected by the pollution of our environment.

Les Amis et riverains de la rivière Châteauguay, the Société du vieux canal de Beauharnois, and Les Amis de la réserve nationale de faune du Lac-Saint-François, which is in Dundee in my riding, are just a few of the organizations that work with the public to raise awareness about the importance of protecting our waters, lakes, rivers and oceans. They run water-based activities to ensure that our economy is based on more than just the fossil fuel industry.

A number of environmental organizations are also raising public awareness so that we can better protect our waters. These include SCABRIC, Ambioterra, Nostra-Terra, Crivert, the Comité ZIP du Haut-Saint-Laurent, the Comité de l'environnement — Ste-Martine, the Comité consultatif en développement durable et en environnement de la Ville de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and the Comité Environnement de la MRC de Beauharnois—Salaberry, just to name a few. All of these local organizations are very aware of the fact that we need to protect our waters.

The motion moved to eliminate the use of microbeads is one of the measures put forward by the NDP to protect our waters. All of these sources of pollution show that things are not looking good for our waterways. As I was saying, in my riding, the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area has been fighting for years to preserve plants and wildlife that are unique to the region. The wildlife area is home to approximately 20 rare or threatened species, including the yellow flag; the osprey, which is a bird of prey; and the snapping turtle, a wonderful species of turtle.

What has the Conservative government done to protect our wildlife areas? It cut the budget of the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area, threatening its very survival. It also amended the legislation protecting our lakes and rivers with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, mammoth bills that were introduced in 2012 and gutted protections for our waterways.

Châteauguay River protection groups strongly condemned the Conservatives' direct attacks on our environment. In addition to all of these efforts, many members banded together to introduce bills to protect the environment and our waterways.

I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this motion to ensure that we can make the consumer products that enter our homes safe and leave a healthy planet to future generations by developing a sustainable economy.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, as the debate starts to wind down on this motion, it is important we recognize that the issue of plastic microbeads is a very serious. It is an issue in which we would like to think we would see some very tangible action taken in regard to it. We know Canadians as a whole are very passionate about the need for us to do what we can as legislators to improve our environment and almost double down when it comes to our water systems in our lakes, rivers, oceans and creeks.

In recognizing how important this issue is, would the member agree that education is also an important issue in dealing with environmental issues and that we need to talk more about education and what the public or consumers could do, and even to a certain degree other stakeholders, to make our environment a better place to be? A good example of that is microbeads. I suspect if we were to canvass, we would find that less than 30% or 40% of Canadians would know what microbeads are and the impact they have on our water system.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question from my colleague from Winnipeg North.

Education is indeed important, and the Conservatives have a poor record when it comes to that. They cut the budget of the only environmental museum in North America, the Biosphere. We worked very hard to defend the Biosphere, which the Conservatives completely abandoned two years ago.

With respect to plastic microbeads in particular, yes, the federal government needs to be willing to introduce a legislative framework for the cosmetics and consumer product industries. That said, we also need to make the public aware, so that people know what types of products contain microbeads and what they can do to discourage the use of these products.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

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

We are fortunate with this issue, since the House of Commons unanimously supports this motion. Could the member also talk to us about how it would be nice to have unanimity on other motions? Clearly all of the members in the House can, from time to time, decide to go along with protecting the environment.

This is the kind of motion and unanimity we should have more often, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I support what my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is saying.

It is clear. We should be able to move ahead on issues without stalling, or worse yet, moving backward, like the Conservatives have done on the environment.

The Conservatives withdrew Canada from the Kyoto protocol; they got rid of almost every environmental protection law; and environmental assessments have almost all disappeared, as has the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I am repeating myself because what is happening when it comes to the environment is very serious.

They are in the process of ensuring that every scientist who works on the environment is censored. We have a lot of catch-up work to do so that we can do proper sustainable development, which is what the NDP has been proposing from the start.

Working on both the environment and the economy is part of the NDP's intrinsic values.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Kitchener Centre know there are approximately seven minutes left in the time remaining for debate on the question. I know the hon. member was probably expecting his full 10 minutes. He will have pretty close to that, but I will give him the usual signal as we near the time provided for the business of supply today.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.