Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intention behind the member for Sydney—Victoria's motion. Government measures, effective policies and the quality of the policies put forward are at the forefront of my mind as environment critic. However, I have to point out some of the flaws in this motion.
I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Motion No. 35, even though we recognize that eco-labelling has its virtues and that such a mechanism is worthwhile. Over the past 40 years, there has been a lot of demand for that type of labelling.
That said, aside from the fact that the motion calls for 12 meetings of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which would take up a lot of time, there are some issues with the wording of the motion itself, starting with the fact that it says the government has the capacity to create a “clear and concise metric by which Canadians can consider the impacts of their buying habits”. It is not the government's job to operationalize that. What we need to figure out is whether it can be done.
Experts have written hundreds of documents analyzing the vast eco-labelling landscape, and there is a virtually infinite body of technical knowledge on the subject. We can certainly see why. Eco-labelling actually exists already. The flexibility and rigidity of various systems and logos fall into three categories: certifications, self-declared claims and environmental product declarations.
For instance, Quebec has 10 certification bodies in the construction and renovation sector, 10 for residential and industrial cleaning products, eight for electronics, 13 for the food sector, and so on.
Furthermore, the motion ignores the role played by Quebec and the other provinces in managing eco-labels. Creating a single label that would cover all products is impossible. Under no circumstances could a single certification apply to all consumer goods, because each sector, and even each subsector, has its own unique characteristics. For example, one cannot compare the environmental sustainability or the carbon footprint of a fish with that of a two-by-four. If that were possible, it would be worrisome and even pointless.
I would also like to point out that Canada imports a lot of goods, and based on the current wording, the motion would apply to all imported goods, as well. Every organization behind a logo must provide clear information on the measures and criteria it applies to authorize the use of that logo. This information is available to consumers. The vast range of criteria behind a logo cannot be standardized.
From a business perspective, eco-labels are used to promote the products on which they appear. Manufacturers have made organizational and financial efforts. They have put in place procedures to have the privilege of demonstrating their environmental probity. Generally, they make these efforts because they know that consumers notice them.
In other words, there is an important business aspect in the ecosystem of eco-labels that must be considered. Consumers' appreciation of businesses that show good corporate citizenship is real and growing. I think that is excellent news. It means that Quebec and Canadian consumers and consumers around the world where these ecosystems exist can make choices.
For the average citizen with an awareness of the environmental issues caused by the goods they consume, seeing an eco-label will surely generate a feeling of satisfaction. It is a confirmation of their values and it helps the cause of environmental protection. Some consumers only buy eco-certified products.
Companies that agree to a certification process are committed to doing better, which does not go unnoticed. It is not nothing. Let's talk about corporations that have implemented ISO 14000. The Bureau de normalisation du Québec is an expert in this standard and responsible for its successful implementation in Quebec. It knows the positive impact this has had on thousands of businesses. Some labels even include social criteria such as workers rights and fair trade. Motion No. 35 gives the impression that eco-labelling does not exist, but that is not true.
The website of Quebec's environment and climate change ministry has some interesting information for anyone who wants to learn more about this.
Canada's Competition Bureau has also looked at environmental claims with the Canadian Standards Association. Canada has national expertise on standards, but it should be pointed out that, in order to do what Motion No. 35 is asking, we would need to work within a set of standards. It is important to consider these standards in order to avoid what is known as greenwashing. Working within a set of standards is an ever-present concern when it comes to obtaining these environmental logos or accreditations, no matter the category of products.
It is no secret that we are already very well aware of the environmental impact of certain industries.
We are not ruling out the potential of eco-labelling in the green shift that is needed, but we will focus on several sector-based actions. Here are a few examples: develop energy efficiency and recovery in all sectors; demand that Canadian manufacturers optimize their production operations with processes that are safe for the environment and human health, without compromise; focus on efforts to update the list of banned chemicals; monitor production conditions in this industry sector; promote organic farming and animal husbandry practices, with proximity between production and destination as a priority; and support production activities that genuinely take the life cycle of the product into account. I could go on with many other examples.
I would now like to change tack a little and point out that my colleague put his motion into context by saying, “Canadians understand that climate change represents a threat to our way of life and are looking for opportunities where they can make a difference in their day-to-day lives”.
Personal responsibility is commendable. Making consumer choices based on our values is also commendable. We are responsible for the things we purchase. However, perhaps the government members should stop always criticizing citizens for their climate actions and look toward the big players, those that have a real impact on the crisis affecting us, such as the oil sector, the gas sector and the nuclear sector. We hope that the government members will introduce binding legislation to meet the Paris targets.
I cannot end my speech without mentioning another label, the GMO label for genetically modified organisms. I know that this is not so much about whether these GMOs produce greenhouse gases, but about identifying the foods we eat. GMO labels should indicate that these are genetically modified living organisms that pose a risk and a threat to biodiversity. If there is an eco-labelling issue that deserves our attention, it is that one.
For more than 10 years, 85% of Quebeckers have been calling for such labelling. Initiatives were even put forward here in the House more than 10 years ago, when the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill that was never adopted.
In Europe, labelling GMOs has been mandatory since 1997, for 23 years, and European countries even strengthened their legislation in 2004. Why can Europeans know the characteristics and identification of what they are eating, but we cannot? We already have a fairly clear picture of what is harmful to the environment in Canada.
The government has missed several opportunities to take action on the inherent threats of climate change. When we are elected, we take responsibility, and when we make promises, we must keep them.