Madam Speaker, Canadians understand the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss. They want to be better consumers and make more sustainable choices. Environmental grading labels, or eco-labels, could provide Canadians with information about the environmental impacts of products and allow them to make more informed choices.
This could also incentivize producers to create more environmentally friendly and sustainable products to meet consumer demand, but we need to ensure the burden of environmental protection does not fall on individuals alone. Any consumer labelling should always be coupled with strong regulatory standards and real climate action.
The possibility of having the government implement an across-the-board environment grading label that includes greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy usage and waste creation is certainly an interesting idea. Worldwide there are 456 eco-labels in 199 countries, covering 25 industry sectors.
These labels cover a wide range of environmental criteria for products from cosmetics and clothing to cleaning, home and garden and paper products. Some eco-labels are created and managed on a national level while others are international in scope. They may be based on a narrow set of considerations or more complex full life-cycle assessments.
Consumers who want to make more environmentally friendly choices often have trouble recognizing the meaning of the wide range of labels they are faced with. It is not always obvious which specific environmental claims are true, what they mean or what assurances exist, if any, regarding their accuracy. While consumers distrust private businesses to provide credible environmental information, they do trust governments and environmental NGOs to provide that information.
If the government were to play a role in implementing an environmental grading label for all products and services available to Canadian consumers, it could help to address some of these issues. However, it is unclear how effective eco-labelling really is on influencing consumer behaviour, and ultimately on our goal of reducing environmental impacts.
As I mentioned, a study from the U.K. recommended companies be required to modify the sources of their products rather than rely on consumer decisions. Eco-labels could be good for consumer choice, and increased demand for sustainable products could help push producers to create more environmentally friendly products, but these labels should be attached to strong regulatory standards so we are not relying on consumers to shop defensively.
We need to ensure the burden of environmental protection and climate action does not fall on individuals. We should be taking strong action to strengthen regulatory standards and enforcement. We also need to be better on producer accountability, especially when it comes to plastics.
The modernization and strengthening of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is one way this can be done and is very important. The purpose of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is to prevent pollution and protect the environment and human health. It sets out rules for preventing and regulating toxic substances and for managing pollution.
However, CEPA is out of date and badly in need of reform. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed CEPA in 2017 and made 87 recommendations to strengthen and modernize this act, but so far the government has failed to act.
One of those recommendations is that the right to a healthy environment should be enshrined in law. This is so important, and I want to give a shout-out to the member for Winnipeg Centre who put forward a motion not only to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law but to make sure the foundation is built upon a recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Too often, vulnerable and marginalized populations bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm, and CEPA lacks provisions to protect those who have been made vulnerable or to safeguard against environmental injustice. We need protection for people who are inequitably impacted, including front-line workers, women, children, the elderly and people living in pollution hot spots, too often indigenous communities.
The NDP would like to see an environmental bill of rights that would ensure all Canadians can enjoy a guarantee of clean water, land and air. These are the changes my NDP colleagues and I have been pushing for.
I also want to acknowledge two exceptional young people from my riding of Victoria. They have been advocating for environmental rights since they were seven and 10 years old. They have created a petition with the House of Commons, urging the federal government to update CEPA, including amendments to recognize environmental rights in Canada. Today is the last day for the petition to be open for signatures. It has already gained 8,000 signatures from people across the country.
I am awed, inspired and thankful for the leadership that Franny and Rupert have shown in their advocacy. However, young people should not have to be advocating for these rights. Their government should be leading the way on protecting our environment and our health.
When it comes to waste creation, Canadians thought they were doing their part when it came to recycling. It turns out that less than 10% of plastics disposed of by Canadians every year is recycled. It is now clear that recycling alone is not enough; we need to also stop producing so much waste. Almost half the plastic produced in Canada is from packaging, yet packaging is not included in the government's plan for a ban on the use of plastics. Dealing with our waste does not just mean disposing of it or recycling it. We need leadership on waste reduction targets and a plan to get to a zero-waste Canada. In order to do that, producer accountability, when it comes to the production of plastics, is critical.
Canada is not anywhere close to being on track to meeting its climate targets and we know that those targets are not adequate to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions we need to avoid catastrophic climate change. We are not even close, which is, I guess, the reason why the government is trying to avoid accountability for the next 10 years. The scope of the cuts to carbon emissions is so beyond what the government thinks is achievable and it is definitely beyond what this motion and eco-labelling attempt to do through making more sustainable purchasing choices.
Canadians want to do their part, but we should be careful not to emphasize individual purchasing choices over the bold systemic changes we need to address the climate crisis. We need to end fossil fuel subsidies. We need to implement real climate accountability. We need to invest in sustainable jobs and a low-carbon future.
Canadians understand that the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss pose a great existential threat to our environment, to our health, to our communities and to our future. They want to make better and more environmentally sustainable choices, but they also expect their government to do its part in protecting our land, air and water.
One way of doing that is by setting strong environmental standards and requiring producer accountability. The burden of environmental protection cannot fall on individuals alone. We need to prioritize taking strong action to strengthen regulatory standards, modernizing CEPA and taking bold action on the climate crisis.
We cannot keep putting off action on the climate crisis. Canadians are worried about their future. Parents should not have to worry about the air their children breathe. Students and young people should not have to march in the streets just to draw attention to the crisis that is happening because politicians and people in leadership positions are not protecting their future.
The recent climate accountability bill was a good step forward, but it is not enough. This eco-labelling motion is an interesting idea, but we need to focus on what our priorities are, especially in the upcoming 10 years. This is why it is so egregious that the government has left out a five-year milestone target. It has put off accountability for the next decade, the most critical decade.
Jack Layton was the first person to put forward a climate accountability bill in the House and he would not want us to wait another 10 years to see accountability. We need to push the government to take real climate action. We need investments in good jobs, in the kind of good, long-term sustainable jobs of the future.
I want to thank the member again for putting forward the motion, but we need to focus on what is important to Canadians, and that is real climate action.