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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Notice of MotionWays and MeansRoutine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Marine TransportationRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, and I will hear him now.

Marine TransportationRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I would request that you rule on my request on an urgent matter regarding the ongoing delays and cancellations of the federally obligated ferry service to and from Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a growing and dire situation. It has been noted by many responsible individuals within Newfoundland and Labrador who have knowledge of the situation that there are indeed food shortages occurring in certain areas.

Marine Atlantic is a federal crown corporation that enacts a constitutional obligation on the part of Canada to operate, in accordance with the traffic offering, a freight and passenger service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port-au-Basques, Newfoundland. The terms of union, which were enacted in 1949, prescribed this as a constitutional obligation. Further, that constitutional obligation exists, as stated in the terms of union, as traffic offers.

Ice conditions are one part of the question that needs to be debated and answered by the government. What exactly is causing these consistent delays and cancellations? Yes, there are ice conditions that are affecting the ferry service, but I would also note that it is the Government of Canada that operates the fleet of icebreaking services in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Given the fact that a constitutional obligation exists on the part of Canada to maintain this in accordance with the traffic offering, for the government to simply say that ice is impeding those operations, while it in fact holds the tools to continue to maintain these freight and passenger services, in accordance with the traffic offering, is not a fair statement.

I will also add to this request I raise under Standing Order 52 that it also is incumbent upon the Speaker to consider the fact that this matter of an essential service designation was raised by Canada in 2003. The Canadian Industrial Relations Board heard a case by petitioners and ruled that the constitutionally obligated Marine Atlantic ferry service was deemed an essential service and that its operation was critical to the health and safety of all Newfoundland and Labradorians.

I would point out that 90% of all perishable goods, 90% of all food items and groceries, enter the province by way of the gulf ferry service. Its failure to operate over the last several days and weeks means that those grocery items are in short supply. The fact that the Canadian government has not been able to provide adequate icebreaking services has led to a situation whereby the health and safety of Newfoundland and Labradorians is now in question.

Given the fact that a constitutional obligation exists on the part of Canada to operate this ferry service; given the fact that there has already been a quasi-judicial board ruling that states that this service is indeed an essential service and must be maintained, or health and safety will be compromised; given the fact that the Government of Canada operates and maintains the means for this service to continue to operate under all conditions, including with the provision of icebreaking services; given the fact that the Government of Canada also makes decisions with regard to the particular specifications of the ferries they employ for the operation of this service; given the fact that there has already been noted a serious health and safety concern that needs to be alleviated immediately; given the fact that there are no relative means for the House to pursue this question, as this is a complex issue for which concerns raised during question period would not necessarily be able to provide adequate answers not only for Parliament but for Canadians in general; and given the fact that a question has to be put, after an exploration of the facts, we would implore the Speaker to allow this emergency debate to occur so that the government can put forward its position on these matters and inform Parliament and all Canadians as to how exactly this evolved into this circumstance and what exactly it wants to do about it.

This is a matter of grave urgency, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would provide us with an opportunity to further debate it.

Speaker's RulingRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. While I am sure it is important to the member and the region he represents, I am not sure it meets the test for an emergency debate at this time.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 42 minutes.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

March 24th, 2015 / 11 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2015, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills.

In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I am proud to stand here to debate our motion and to start the process for banning microbeads in products that we use everyday. The time has come for us to begin that step toward protecting the health of our ecosystems and our health as humans. I am pleased that the NDP is dedicating this entire day of debate to the issue of microbeads.

My only regret is that my colleague from Windsor West is not here today because this is his motion, not mine. The MP for Windsor West has been working tirelessly with industry, environment groups and citizen action groups on this issue. Unfortunately, he is not here today to see his work culminate in an opposition day motion and a debate in the House because his grandmother passed away last week. He is speaking at her funeral today, and he is with his family.

We are real people in the House and we have real joys and real sorrows. This is a moment of sorrow for our colleague from Windsor West. He is with his family where he should be, celebrating the long life and legacy of Marion Masse, affectionately known as “Ma”, who lived a long 96 years. Our thoughts are with the member and his family.

We will carry on with this debate. It is officially in my name because one needs to be here for the motion to be in one's name. However, we know in our hearts that it is the member's hard work that actually brought this motion to the House.

What are we debating? Microbeads are these tiny little beads of plastic, and members would be amazed what they are in. They are in so many different products. Think about those products that you use to create that rosy glow you have, Mr. Speaker, and exfoliate your skin. They are in those abrasive toothpastes we use or in the body wash we use in the shower.

It may be okay to use these microbeads on our skin, but it is not okay to use them once they get into the environment and our ecosystems, and they are not okay for our health. These microbeads are plastic. A tube of toothpaste has tens of thousands of these tiny plastic beads in them. We brush our teeth and they go down the drain into our waterways. We wash our face and millions of these tiny plastic beads go right down the drain and end up in our lakes, our rivers and our oceans. That is not what we intended.

These plastic microbeads are so small that they are consumed by a variety of marine life. We have seen them in plankton. Plankton is about the smallest thing we can get, yet these microbeads are it. We have seen them in shellfish and in mollusks. We know that fish are ingesting them. We start with small fish, but then go up the food chain to larger fish. Think about the microbeads that are accumulating in these fish and mollusks. They are being eaten by birds, seals, whales and us. At the end of this food chain, we are ingesting marine life that has tiny beads of plastic in it.

Animals are suffering because of this plastic. We have seen cases of asphyxiation where animals cannot breathe. We have seen fish guts filled with plastic and fish that have starved to death because they cannot eat anymore as they are so filled with plastic. We have seen disruption at the cellular level. We know this is having an impact on the very cells of marine life. There is something terribly wrong here. I do not know that having that rosy glow is worth it when we see these beads go right down the drain and into our ecosystem like this.

We also know that these tiny beads are almost like sponges and they absorb other toxins from the water. We know they absorb DDT and PCBs. They are in everything, from mollusks to fish to seals. At the end of the day what happens when we eat that wildlife?

How did this happen? Our grandparents would add oatmeal to soap to have that abrasive quality. We used to use natural products like oatmeal, ground almonds or sea salt. However, in the seventies, these little plastic beads were developed and they really took off in the 1990s. Now we almost cannot buy a product without these microbeads in it. They are pervasive, they are everywhere. I will admit, I have fallen into this trap. Jojoba beads are in my face wash, and I did not do the investigation to find out what that meant. Unbeknownst to me, I am flushing plastic down my drain along with everybody else. We do not realize these plastics are in our products.

Plastic beads are in toothpaste. Last night I did a Facebook post at the end of the evening, so it was a little too late for most of my folks on the east coast to pick up on this post, but other people commented on it. I had a number of posts from dental hygienists. They said that they were seeing these microbeads build up behind people's gum line, and they have to peel this plastic out from behind their gums, which is then causing even more gum disease and damage to our teeth. We did not expect that to happen. These are the unintended consequences of having put plastics into products we use every day.

A lot of people on my Facebook posts admitted they had no idea. They just assumed it was something like oatmeal or that these jojoba beads must be something positive and natural. That is not the case. More education is needed on this issue for sure, but we also need action to ban these microbeads from our products.

On the education front, Environmental Defence and Ecojustice in particular have done a lot of work on this issue. Environmental Defence has done a great job of raising awareness around microbeads. It has talked to me about this and has said that there has been incredible pickup from the community at large, that people are interested in this issue, that they do not realize the microbeads are there and that they are really concerned about what it means for our environment and our health.

Environmental Defence has done really good work at the provincial level. For example, in Ontario a private member's bill is working its way through the Ontario legislature. I believe it passed second reading, and Environmental Defence has been promoting that work.

Environmental Defence has also worked on a petition to deal with this at the federal level. If we have one province doing X and one province doing Y, we end up with a patchwork and it does not help anybody, including industry. Therefore, Environmental Defence has talked about the fact that this should come from the federal level.

How do we do it? Environmental Defence has started with a petition. The critics for the environment and the Minister of the Environment get emails from people. This weekend I received 2,500 contacts from this petition. I know there are almost 7,000 signatures on it already. Environmental Defence is working with Ecojustice, the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and the Ottawa Riverkeeper. They have written a letter to the Minister of the Environment asking her basically what we are asking for in our motion today, which is to take the first step of listing this as a toxic substances under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, so we can do an assessment and take that first step toward banning these microbeads.

A lot of people think we are taking on the cosmetics industry. A lot of industry has voluntarily banned these beads. I am happy to report that Colgate-Palmolive and Unilever, for example, have taken the steps to ban these beads, but they want an even playing field. They want to ensure that everybody is adhering to this, and they want regulation.

I am holding in my hand a letter from the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. It talks about our motion. It points out the work of my colleague from Windsor West and says that this is the general advice and direction for which its industry is most supportive. Therefore, we are not getting push back from industry.

We really need to act and ban these microbeads. The best way to deal with pollution is to prevent it in the first place. We are on board, the environment groups are on board and industry is on board. I look forward to the debate in the House today. I hope the government is on board with this as well and that we can act swiftly to get rid of these microbeads before it is too late.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this issue forward. I listened intently to her speech.

Could she make available for the House her evidence that there are impacts on humans from the ingestion of fish? My understanding is the current studies we have do not demonstrate that there is an impact on humans. Could she make those studies available to the House?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker. I do not believe I asserted that there were impacts on human health. I believe I asserted that these beads could absorb DDT and PCBs. I asserted that we were eating that fish, so there was a conclusion to be drawn there.

I can certainly table the studies I have seen, with consent from the House. It might take me a little while to get them translated, but I can table the studies showing that these beads are absorptive of other toxins. I would happy to table any other reports I have read about the fact that they causes blockages, asphyxiation and starvation in fish. This is a real issue.

I hope the parliamentary secretary is talking to his dental hygienist as well. There is first-hand knowledge on this stuff. If it is accumulating behind our gums, for the love of God, can we not just say that this stuff should not be in toothpaste? We are not asking for the world.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising this matter in the House. Clearly, the extent of potential harm is much broader than I had understood.

How were these corporations allowed to include these microbeads into consumer products that, if not directly impact human health, clearly would impact species that we may rely on for our health and existence? How did this occur without some kind of thorough environmental impact assessment to prevent this from happening?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could turn the floor over to my colleague for a 10-minute speech, because she is a real expert in this area. She knows about the gaps that we have in our approvals, whether it is via Health Canada or Environment Canada, and the way we test products and pharmaceuticals even, and the impacts that has downstream.

We need to close some of these gaps. I do not know the full history with this product, but I know there was testing on whether these microbeads would do damage to my precious skin. However, where is the testing that needs to be done down the line?

We talk about downstream effects. This is literally downstream. What happens downstream when these tiny pieces of plastic are ingested? How can there be that big a hole in our regulatory process that we do not take this into account when we know it will go directly into the drain; from face to drain?

This is a huge problem and we need to address it. It involves not only Health Canada but Environment Canada as well.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, to correct the hon. member for Halifax, jojoba beads are not microbeads; they are natural. Where is the hon. member getting her facts from?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, that is like instant correction. I have never seen this from that side of the House. Usually the talking points are written eight years in advance.

The product I use has jojoba beads and microbeads. I can bring it in and table it.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, by moving this motion, we are trying to ban the use of microbeads in consumer products. Since the 1990s, these products have become veritable vectors of these microbeads, which end up poisoning our ecosystems because they are ingested by various marine organisms. Slowly but surely we are indirectly poisoning ourselves with our consumer products.

These microbeads take up the most toxic substances, which can ultimately poison us. It is not just consumer products that introduce microplastics into the environment. For example, when we wash our clothes, microplastics can be shed by the nylon and the fabric. However, compared to other ways that microplastics enter the environment, especially by the degradation of plastic products, consumer products are the easiest to target in order to eliminate microbeads. Since it is so easy to do it, we must do it.

Last October, Francine Plourde did an exposé on microbeads on the Radio-Canada program Les années lumière. It exposed the insidious plastics chain that has led us to move this motion calling on the government to take immediate measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The study carried out by McGill University researchers, together with the Government of Quebec, examined the significant presence of polluting microbeads in the sediment of our St. Lawrence River. She told us that, in some spots, the researchers found more than 1,000 microbeads per litre of sediment, which is much higher than what is being found in the world's most contaminated marine sediments. An analysis of the the structures of the microbeads found points to the same microbeads that are in consumer products.

The term microplastics generally refers to plastic particles smaller than five millimetres in diameter. Microbeads found in cosmetics are always less than one millimetre in diameter.

I will try to explain the cycle of microbeads in a few points. First, thousands of cosmetic products use plastic microbeads, generally in exfoliants and cleansing products.

In 2009, Fendall and Sewell, from the University of Auckland, found that that microbeads pass into waste water and sewer systems directly because they are too small to be retained by the filters used at sewage treatment plants. That is how they end up in marine environments and eventually in the food chain.

Although the full extent and consequences are hard to quantify, the accumulation of plastic in the marine environment is now recognized as a serious, global environmental issue. Some specialists have even said that it is like putting a plastic bag over the head of our marine environment. I do not have to explain that having a plastic bag over one's head does not usually end well. The impact that this kind of pollution is having on marine biodiversity and human health is causing grave concern among scientists.

I would like to share some scientific findings with the House. Marine species are unable to distinguish between food and microplastics, and therefore often end up indiscriminately feeding on microplastics. In an overview published for the Convention on Biological Diversity, it was shown that over 663 different species were adversely affected by marine debris, with approximately 11% of reported cases specifically related to the ingestion of microplastics. Some species of fish excrete plastic easily, but others do not and therefore accumulate plastic internally.

For instance, one study found that around 35% of 670 fish examined, from six different species, had plastic in their stomachs. The highest number of plastic fragments found in one fish alone was 83.

In terms of human health, it has been proven that microplastics attract and absorb persistent organic pollutants.

Pollutants such as PCBs and DDT are already present in the environment. Relatively high concentrations of these persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, have been detected on the surface of microplastics.

International Pellet Watch, coordinated by Professor Takada of the University of Tokyo, is currently researching this. Professor Takada's scientific work shows that some persistent organic pollutants have been found in the tissues of seabirds after the birds ingested microplastics carrying these pollutants.

In theory, POPs ingested by animals should be able to bind to the fragments of plastic that are swallowed before being naturally expelled. However, these pieces of plastic have been found in the intestines and tissues of fish and other seafood regularly consumed by humans.

Scientists are concerned that these POPs will eventually accumulate in the food chain as they are transmitted from species to species and that they could end up having negative consequences for human beings.

Toxic chemicals, such as plasticizers and flame retardants, that are added to plastics during manufacturing can be released into the environment and can threaten marine animals. Some of the most common plasticizers have been found in fish, marine mammals and mollusks.

Currently, in terms of human health, most of the studies are based on animal models. We do not know the health risks, but since there are potential risks, it would be totally unethical to experiment on human beings. That is why studies are based on animal models, particularly rats, to determine the potential effects on humans.

Any studies involving humans would be long-term observational studies, but the problem with such studies is that by the time the potential consequences for human beings become clear, it could be too late because the toxic effects will already be present.

I can cite some potential effects of products derived from synthetic organic chemistry. For example, aldicarb is highly toxic to the nervous system. Benzene can damage chromosomes and cause leukemia, anemia, and blood disorders. When it comes to vinyl chloride, we often talk about damage to the liver, kidneys and lungs, and cardiovascular and gastrointestinal problems. It is also a carcinogen and a suspected mutagen. A mutagen causes genetic mutation, including in vitro. Chloroform could cause damage to the liver and the kidneys. It is a suspected carcinogen. Dioxins are carcinogens and mutagens that can affect the skin. When we talk about ethylene dibromide, we are talking about cancer and male sterility. Polychlorinated biphenyl can cause damage to the liver, kidneys and lungs. Carbon tetrachloride is a carcinogen. It affects the liver, kidneys, lungs, and central nervous system. High doses of trichloroethylene damage the liver, kidneys, central nervous system and the skin. It is a carcinogen and a suspected mutagen.

As you can see, there are many chemical substances associated with plastic microbeads, which are potentially hazardous to human health. It is quite worrisome.

I have here another study on the many effects of these chemical substances. The study indicates that children and pregnant women are the most affected. What is more, these substances have a huge impact on male reproductive health, including problems with undescended testicles, poor sperm quality, and changes in testosterone levels. The male reproductive system is particularly sensitive to exposure to these chemicals.

Waiting to see what effects these chemicals will have on humans before taking action comes with serious risk. That is why I would recommend that we err on the side of caution when it comes to plastic microbeads. Although there are few studies on humans, there are many studies based on animal models that are very good. I can name several for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment if he would like. It would be my pleasure.

If we want to respect the principle discussed at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, we should exercise caution with respect to plastic microbeads and vote for the motion moved by my colleague from Halifax.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could elaborate a little more on some of the terms she used.

She seems to jump from potential effects to poisoning, which is the term she actually used. I cannot remember the exact quote, but she stated that we are being poisoned. It is very important when we are dealing with these important issues that we not be alarmist in any way whatsoever. I realize that most studies on fish mortality show issues with plastic.

Therefore, my question to her is this. Does she have any specific evidence that separates the impacts of microbeads from the broader issue of plastic waste and does she have any evidence of human poisoning effects that she could bring forward? Where she is getting her information from?

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the toxic substances I mentioned, the verdict is already in: these toxic substances are harmful to human beings. There is growing evidence that the toxic substances present in water are connected to plastic microbeads, which behave somewhat like sponges.

Some very interesting studies cite other studies on the animal model. Unfortunately, these studies are only available in English. However, I read a particularly interesting article entitled “Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends” by Thompson, Moore, vom Saal and H. Swan. I could provide the member with the cover if he would like to read it. However, I cannot table it in the House because I only have an English copy. Several studies point out the potential risks.

The researchers say that we cannot afford to wait and see whether or not the risks manifest themselves. In fact, if we wait for the biological risks to manifest themselves, it will be too late to reverse their effects. We should apply the precautionary principle to plastic microbeads because of their potential adverse effects. In this case, when we talk about potential harm to reproductive functions and the mutagenicity that can harm chromosomes, it is very important to be cautious.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting and important topic. Of course, it is necessary to be grounded in science and to speak with scientific accuracy.

I am certain that my colleague from the opposite side understands the difference between microplastics and microbeads that are specifically engineered. It would benefit the House if she were to explain that distinction and the different consequences that might ensue from microplastics generally as distinct from microbeads that are specifically engineered.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can repeat part of my speech, because I already explained this.

The term microplastics generally refers to plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres in diameter. There are other characteristics. I do not want to get into too much detail, because I do not have 20 minutes to answer the question.

Microbeads are generally found in cosmetics and certain products. We are talking about particles smaller than 1 millimetre in diameter. Plastic microbeads often act as sponges. They absorb existing chemicals in the marine environment and in the environment that came from somewhere else. When fish ingest the microbeads, these particles end up in the organisms and, as a result, end up in the food chain. They can eventually end up in human beings, through the food chain. That is how it works.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this motion. I will let the House know that I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

It is a pleasure to provide the House with an update on the actions that our government has taken to protect the health of Canadian families and the environment from the risks posed by pollution and harmful substances. This is an issue that our government has championed since taking office in 2006. For that reason, I am pleased to provide a summary of a few of these activities.

First of all, as we know, chemicals used safely provide untold benefits for Canadians, supporting innovation across virtually every sector of the Canadian economy from medicine to manufacturing and from transportation to high technology. Our government has taken steps, including an investment of over $800 million to ensure that chemicals used in our homes, businesses, and public spaces are properly managed and that risks to Canadians are minimized, regardless of whether these chemicals are new to industry or have been used for decades.

Our government's chemicals management plan, initially announced by the Prime Minister in 2006, has set an ambitious agenda to ensure the safety of all chemicals used in Canada. This program has made Canada a world leader in assessing and regulating chemicals used in industrial and consumer products. This work has a direct impact on the health of all Canadians and the environment in which we live.

In 2006, our government invested $300 million for Environment Canada and Health Canada to take rapid action on chemicals, using a transparent, whole-of-government approach to ensure that all potential sources of exposure were investigated, whether they be through air, water, food products, or any other source. This funding was renewed in budget 2011, when our government invested a further $506 million over five years to ensure that this work would continue at full speed.

In addition to providing Canadians with greater security in the health of the environment, the direction our government has taken is important to the chemicals industry, with which we have also worked very closely. The science-based decisions taken under the chemicals management plan provide businesses with investment certainty and stability, and promote research and development into new processes and safer alternatives to those that have been identified as being of concern.

We have taken major strides under the chemicals management plan to address chemicals identified as having potential risks to human health or the environment. We have worked through the assessment of more than 2,700 substances in commerce to date. They are substances that have been in use in Canada for many years without ever having been evaluated by the government for their safety. We have set for ourselves the goal of completing the evaluation of approximately 4,300 substances by 2020.

At the same time, under the chemicals management plan, the government has screened more than 3,000 substances new to Canada prior to their entry into the Canadian market. We have applied any necessary conditions or other measures to ensure that any of these new chemicals are used safely when they reach our borders. For any substance found to pose a risk, our government uses a suite of tools and legislation to ensure that they are not used in ways that could lead to harm to Canadians or their environment. To date, we have taken action on more than 60 chemicals or groups of chemicals that have been scientifically shown to be harmful to the environment or human health. We have also published more than 60 risk management measures that are customized based on a number of factors, such as where releases occur and populations that are identified as being most at risk.

The chemicals management plan is also an adaptive program able to react to new priorities, such as microbeads in the environment. Microplastics are increasingly found in the environment and take on a number of forms, including manufactured microbeads used for a variety of applications and the natural breakdown of plastic debris in the environment.

Through the chemicals management plan, the impacts of microplastics, including microbeads, on ecosystems are being investigated, and our government is closely following new developments on microplastics as they become available. We will continue to raise this issue with our counterparts in the United States and Ontario under the Great Lakes agenda, as well as with our counterparts who actively participate in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Our government's chemical management plan will also prioritize microbeads for assessment.

The government is also working internationally by actively participating in discussions on the prevention of marine plastic pollution, notably through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations. Domestically, we continue to work with industry to promote sound stewardship of potential pollutants. Several companies from the personal care and cosmetic sectors have already publicly committed to stop using synthetic microbeads. In addition, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association promotes Operation Clean Sweep in Canada, an international voluntary program to prevent plastic pellet losses in the environment.

Our country's thousands of lakes and rivers are a vital part of Canada's natural heritage and a legacy for future generations of Canadians, from supporting biodiversity and healthy aquatic ecosystems, to opening up countless possibilities for recreation, to sustaining our drinking water. For this reason, another key element in our government's commitment to ensuring a safe and clean environment is the measures we have taken to strengthen regulations for water protection. Since 2006, our government has committed $2.3 billion to waste water infrastructures, through various programs.

In addition to these investments, our government's waste water systems effluent regulations, developed with provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders, will help to protect Canada's water quality, ultimately improving ecosystem health.

The new standards will ensure untreated and undertreated sewage are not dumped into our country's waterways. The estimated benefits to Canadians and our economy include improved health of fish and aquatic systems and increasing safety for recreational activities that are part of our tourism industry.

For the waste water systems that do not meet the new standards, there will be time for municipalities to plan and budget funds to complete the upgrades.

I am sure all members would agree that our water is precious. These measures will help us address the largest source of pollution to our lakes and rivers, and in doing so we will help protect Canadians and their environment.

There is no question that protecting the health of Canadians and their environment is a key priority of our government. This priority is clearly reflected through measures such as those I have just described.

With respect to chemicals in the environment, this continues to be a key priority for our government to ensure that Canadians are fully protected and informed. I would urge all my hon. colleagues to support this motion.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, for letting us know that he plans to vote for the motion, and for encouraging his colleagues to support it. That is wonderful news. I like applauding the member, from time to time.

I have a question about next steps. Our motion says the government should take immediate measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. However, we know there are a lot of steps that would have to happen. Therefore, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell us where the government is at in terms of what does come next.

If microbeads are added to the priority substances list, or if they agree that other jurisdictions have implemented a ban, does it mean that is going to trigger an assessment here automatically? I wonder if he knows if the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health intend to seek importers and manufacturers of microbeads to identify themselves and how they would be involved in the process.

Any word on next steps would be really valuable.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have to base our decisions on science. What we have is the chemicals management plan, which represents a major undertaking by our government that will benefit Canadians for generations to come. Building on the success of the chemicals management plan, we will prioritize microbeads for assessment. Environment Canada will initiate a scientific review to assess the effects of microbeads within Canada's environment. What is really important is that the expert advice will inform potential future actions on microbeads.

We are also calling for this issue to be on the agenda at the next meeting with the provincial and territorial environment ministers in the summer. Also, we are paying attention to different states in the United States, whether it is California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, or Wisconsin, and even the U.S. Congress. We are following all the science of this issue.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that we are going to be supporting the motion. I certainly think it is an important thing on which to move forward. However, it is also important to have a very correct record in terms of what is happening. I did the hear opposition talking about the effects of other chemicals binding. Therefore, it is important to drill down. We talked about the chemicals management plan and how we are actually reducing these harmful chemicals in our environment. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment could talk about whether there are any current known health effects from microbeads specifically.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeadsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are different scientific studies that talk about microplastics and microbeads. We really have to rely on the science that is out there. That is why I was asking my colleagues across the way if they had any specific evidence to bring forward on the health effects to humans, to increase the knowledge of the House with respect to this debate. As of this time, I am not aware of any scientific studies that point to any health impacts of microbeads on humans.