Murray Rankin

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very simply, Dr. Ross has said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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

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

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

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 23rd, 2015]

With regard to Health Canada and the regulation of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies for the last ten years: (a) how many companies inspected in Canada have received a “proposal to suspend” letter, broken down by year; (b) how many companies inspected in Canada have received an “immediate suspension,” broken down by year; (c) how many companies inspected in Canada that were not sent a “proposal to suspend” letter or subject to a suspension has Health Canada worked with following an inspection to bring about compliance, broken down by year; (d) how many companies inspected in Canada have been subject to a re-inspection within six months, broken down by year; (e) how many companies inspected internationally have received a “proposal to suspend” letter, broken down by year; (f) how many companies inspected internationally have received an “immediate suspension,” broken down by year; (g) how many companies inspected internationally that were not sent a proposal to suspend letter or subject to a suspension has Health Canada worked with following an inspection to bring about compliance, broken down by year; (h) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have been subject to a re-inspection within six months, broken down by year; (i) how many Import Alerts has Health Canada issued with regard to non-compliant health products, broken down by year; (j) which companies have been subject to an Import Alert; (k) how many voluntary quarantine requests has Health Canada issued, broken down by year; (l) which companies have been subject to a voluntary quarantine request; (m) how many “Notice of Intent to Suspend” letters have been issued to clinical trials, broken down by year; (n) how many “immediate suspensions” has Health Canada issued to clinical trials, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints have been received regarding off-label prescriptions of drugs, broken down by year; and (p) how many cases has Health Canada referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for off-label prescriptions of drugs?

[National Strategy for Dementia Act, March 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I must start by acknowledging the enormous amount of work that my college from Nickel Belt has done on such an important initiative. It has been three and a half years since this initiative first came forward. He has been all around the country. He has heard, not from statistics, but from real Canadians who are living with Alzheimer's and dementia and the tragedy that they entail, not just for the individuals, but for the caregivers. They are always forgotten in these discussions, and they must be acknowledged. I do so today.

I heard the parliamentary secretary stand in this place a moment ago to say that the government could not support this bill due to “technical issues”. This is why we have committees to which we send bills. It is for them to be discussed and for evidence to come forward, and to fix problems that may or may not exist with this initiative.

It is passing strange that two days ago, a motion from the member for Huron—Bruce, the chair of the health committee, was brought forward that would do virtually the same things that this bill would do, but, of course, it would not have the force of law.

Technical objections were suggested by the parliamentary secretary. She referenced, for example, the royal recommendation as somehow being a problem. It is clear that the modifications at committee could have addressed that problem. Moreover, the Conservatives have themselves given royal recommendation to a private member's bill. I speak specifically of Bill C-838.

There is no technical problem that stands in the way of doing what so many Canadians want. There are some 750,000 of us who are living with this disease. We want a law, not a feel-good motion of no force and effect.

The parliamentary secretary talked of the provinces and the strides that have been made to work together. She said that the government is already ahead of Bill C-356.

We can work with the provinces. We can fix things in committee. That is what committees are for. That is how we fix legislation. We give a voice to Canadians, and we work on making the legislation better. To suggest that it must be thrown out, despite enormous effort in going through clause-by-clause with the government to try to do what all Canadians want, in the health field in particular, is not right.

She talks about how fantastic the work is at the international level. I agree there have been some strides made, although interestingly, Canada was not among the countries at the G8, now G7, that had a national dementia strategy, the pan-Canadian, if they want to call it that, dementia strategy. That is very upsetting. If they want to work with the provinces and work internationally, why do they not want to work with this side of the House in a non-partisan way to produce a law that Canadians so desperately want?

When I say “Canadians”, I should start with Dr. Chris Simpson of the Canadian Medical Association, with whom I had the pleasure to meet two days ago. He told me how much he looked forward to a bill of this sort. He said, “our acute care hospitals are overflowing with patients awaiting long term care placement and our long-term care facilities are understaffed...”

He suggests that the cost of looking after people in hospitals is enormous. I think my colleague from Nickel Belt made a suggestion that a health care bill, in today's terms, would be $33 billion, but by 2040, it would soar to $293 billion.

People want a health care strategy. This has to be seen as part of a national aging strategy, which our party is trying to address. This would be part and parcel of a strategy to deal with aging. People need care at home and in the community instead of overflowing expensive hospital beds. It is more humane, and it would cost radically less to treat people better.

The concern about cost is only one part of the tragedy at the human level that my colleague has signalled needs to be addressed. I am told that over 75 petitions on this topic have been tabled here. I am told that over 300 municipalities have passed supporting resolutions. There is a pent-up demand for Parliament and government to show some leadership on this issue.

I respect the initiatives that have been made for research, which are fabulous, and I salute the government for them, but it is not just about finding a cure. This bill would provide leadership, with Ottawa working with the provinces, and it would also promote earlier diagnosis and intervention.

The bill would strengthen the integration of primary home and community care. It would enhance skills and training for the dementia workforce. It would recognize the needs of and improve the supports for caregivers. They are the ones I wish to address. The plight of caregivers, the millions of unpaid hours that are given for free by loved ones for loved ones, is staggering. They do not have enough economic support as people age in our society.

In my community of Victoria, I asked my office to tell me what their experience was in dealing with people living with dementia. They said that there are so many people in a community like Victoria who are living with the disease. I think everyone in the House knows someone who is living with or is connected to someone living with the disease.

There have been so many cutbacks in government agencies in my community, my staff informed me, that people with dementia are unable to access services the way they did before. They need to have face-to-face contact. They are often unable to deal with the processes and roadblocks that have been put in the way as we cut services in the CRA, as we are now about to get rid of postal home delivery, and as we deal with no immigration office in our community.

In our community, people are already suffering from cutbacks. That is having a disproportionate impact on people living with this terrible disease. The boomer generation, of which I am a part, is going to be living with the disease in greater numbers as we go forward. It will be something like 1.4 million people in the next few years. It will increase dramatically.

It is not just a seniors issue, as my colleague from Nickel Belt so passionately demonstrated. It is people he gave examples of, people here in Ottawa who are living with early onset at a much earlier age. He did an excellent job in putting a human face on this crisis we are facing.

Apparently a Nanos survey done recently said that 83% of Canadians believe that Canada needs a national dementia plan. We have had great success with these kinds of plans, such as the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The Canadian Medical Association make reference to its excellent work as an example of what could be done here if the government was willing to work with us to achieve that result.

The former executive director of the Alzheimer's Society of Sudbury, Patricia Montpetit, said this:

It's so pressing that a national strategy be adopted by the government so they don't suddenly wake up one day and say we're overwhelmed with the demands of care.

That is something we all have reason to fear.

I like the expression Dr. Frank Molnar, a professor at the University of Ottawa, uses in describing Alzheimer disease. He calls it “the godfather of all chronic diseases”.

With the gray tsunami, with the aging Canadian population, we are facing a crisis if we do not get our hands around this problem. I respect that the provinces are working now with the federal government to begin this dialogue. We need to go much, much further. We need a strategy that takes into account the skyrocketing economic costs, the social costs, and as I continue to say, the costs for caregivers, because the pressure on family caregivers is only mounting.

I have a statistic here that is quite remarkable. In 2011, family caregivers spent 444 million unpaid hours per year looking after someone with dementia. That represents $11 billion in lost income and 228,000 lost full-time equivalent employees in the workforce. By 2040, they will be devoting a staggering 1.2 billion unpaid hours per year to this initiative.

We have had strategies and partnerships to deal with other devastating diseases, like cancer and heart disease. Why can we not work together to deal with one that we all know is going to be something in the future that will occupy all of us in the country? As the Canadian Medical Association says, it is time to roll up our sleeves and face the epidemic head on.

It is time for the government to work with parties on both sides of the aisle on a pan-Canadian strategy. It is time to put aside partisan differences. Coming up with an alternative motion two days before this debate makes us feel good, but it does not allow a forum for Canadians to come and testify to this tragedy and to provide a law with teeth that would actually do something to address this crisis.

[National Strategy for Dementia Act, March 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt, not only for his eloquence but for his personal courage in dealing with the crisis of which this bill speaks. For the House, I should also thank him for his patience.

In that light, I wonder if the member might enlighten the House on the extent to which he may have had opportunity to work with the other parties in this House and the government. He talked about it being a non-partisan issue; if ever there were one, it surely is this. I wonder if the member could enlighten us on whether there has been any progress in that regard.

[Ethics, March 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this week we heard that the current Minister of Public Works passed over 160 proposals to fund one from a Conservative insider. What kind of message is the minister sending about the government?

When a community organization applies for a grant to the Government of Canada, it should not feel the need to do favours for the Conservative Party. It should be able to trust that the proposal will be considered fairly, based on its merits. Why did she pick this project in Markham ahead of all the others?

[Respect for Communities Act, March 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, those are three questions, but I will try to be short in response to my hon. colleague.

“Supervised injection site” is the right terminology. They are safe, however, because no one has died at Insite as a consequence of injecting there.

BYOH is insulting. This is not what I want. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fact that people were allowed to bring their drugs there for safe injection under supervision.

My riding will not have any sites because this law will not allow, in the real world, any such facilities to be licensed.

[Respect for Communities Act, March 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and friend from Saanich and the Islands for all her work on this important initiative. We tried to have amendments she brought forward, supported by the NDP, to have this entire travesty repealed, but we were unsuccessful.

I have never heard of a criteria requiring CVs for every employee in any such statute. When the member talked about A through Z and Z1, I am still debating with myself just how many criteria there are. A through Z is 26, but then there is one that seems to say anything can be prescribed, anything the minister considers relevant.

We do not even know how many criteria there will be. We do not think there will ever be any safe injection sites as a result of such a wrong-headed and mean-spirited statute.