12207 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 188 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 24, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 188 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 188 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 188 (Version officielle) 147 188 24 03 2015 2015/03/24 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions. I should point out to this place that all petitions that I am presenting today relate to the same subject, that being the grain industry.

The other interesting point I would make is that these petitions were delivered by members of all of the recognized parties in the House, which clearly exemplifies the fact that the grain industry is not only important to western Canadians but to all Canadians. Because of that, I believe it appropriate for me to say a few words as to not only the responses to the petitions themselves but to some of the rationale behind the government's position relating to the grain industry.

Let me, if I may, just for a moment or two, give some of the answers that we have provided to members of this place who have questioned and petitioned the government on the grain industry. The Government of Canada notes the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding farmers' rights to save, use and exchange seeds, both domestically and internationally, and the petitioners' support for the international agricultural aid policies. The Government of Canada understands that many farmers place considerable value on having the ability to save seeds. In conclusion, let me present these petitions as delivered.

[ Translation ] Military Contribution Against ISIL Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a little less than six months ago, I stood in this place to address the House about the rise of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and the threat it poses, not only for that region, but for the broader global community, and in particular for Canada and the Canadian public. [ English ] Back in October, I also spoke of the need to work with the international community in pursuing an aggressive course of action against ISIL, something that the House endorsed.

Today, I am here to report on the evolution of the situation, to note that the direction and resolve of our allies and partners in dealing with this threat has not changed, and to propose that Canada renew its commitment to the international coalition and its mission. [ Translation ] ISIL has established a self-proclaimed caliphate that covers a vast territory from around Aleppo in Syria to the outskirts of Baghdad in Iraq. From that territory, it has launched a terrorist jihad not only against the region, but on a global scale. [ English ] The good news is this.

The territorial spread of ISIL, something occurring at a truly terrifying pace in the spring and summer of last year, has been more or less halted. Indeed, ISIL has been somewhat pushed back at the margins. In significant part, this is because of the breadth and intensity of the international opposition that it has provoked not just in the west but in the majority of the Muslim world, both Shia and Sunni, and specifically in Arab nations.

Nevertheless, ISIL's territorial hold remains substantial and its leadership and networking of wider jihadist forces has continued. [ Translation ] Just as the so-called Islamic State threatened it would do, it has carried out or inspired attacks throughout its network across the globe, including right here in Canada, as I am sure everyone remembers, and in one case, not far from the House of Commons. ISIL has made it clear that it targets, by name, Canada and Canadians. [ English ] ISIL has made it clear that it targets by name Canada and Canadians. Why?

It is for the same reason it targets so many groups, in fact for the same reason it targets most of humanity. In ISIL's view, anyone who does not accept its perverted version of religion should be killed. It is as self-evident to them as it seems insane to us, but it is far from an idle threat. [ Translation ] ISIL does not kill just enemy combatants.

It also kills journalists covering the conflict, aid workers helping innocent civilians and, of course, innocent civilians themselves. [ English ] In fact in its crimes, ISIL targets innocent men, women and children, particularly the most vulnerable and peaceful ethnic and religious minorities. Why do we know these things? Not because, as is so often the case, the behaviour of brutal regimes inevitably becomes public knowledge. No, we know these things because ISIL brags about them. [ Translation ] The so-called Islamic State does more than brag.

It broadcasts its assassinations, committed in the most barbaric way possible, using high-quality video productions, which is unprecedented in the troubling history of human atrocities. (1010) [ English ] Canada, along with roughly 60 other members of the United Nations, has taken action. We have provided staff officers to the coalition's military command. We have transported arms from donor countries to Iraqi forces directly engaged with advancing ISIL terrorists. In fact, early on in this mission, we provided the largest such airlift support.

We have committed Canadian soldiers to advise and assist Iraqi Kurdish forces defending their homes in northern Iraq. [ Translation ] We have taken

part in air strikes that have allowed us to hit ISIL targets in Iraq directly. [ English ] Our Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18s have made strategic air strikes against ISIL targets in Iraq in the coalition's air campaign.

Canada's highly capable CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft have made possible the coalition's effective precision bombing. [ Translation ] Reconnaissance and logistical support, as well as the expertise provided by the Canadian Armed Forces, have been an integral part of the international mission. [ English ] Canada is also helping those combatting regional terrorist financing networks, and we are working in concert with others to stem the flow of foreign fighters to the region. [ Translation ] Of course, we have also offered assistance to civilians who have been displaced in the region. [ English ] In fact, among the nations of the world, we have been one of the biggest providers of humanitarian assistance.

I am glad to say that in the last six months we have helped feed 1.7 million people in Iraq, provide shelter and relief supplies to 1.25 million people, and give some education to at least 0.5 million children. Beyond that, we have also been helping to support more than 200,000 Syrian refugees in Iraq with food, water, shelter and protection. There is no either/or here between military action and humanitarian aid. The situation desperately needs both, and Canada has vigorously been providing both, and so have a wide range of our international partners.

The upshot is this: there has been no lessening or weakening of the global consensus that ISIL must be resisted and resisted by force. [ Translation ] That is why, today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be tabling a motion seeking the support of the House for the government's decision to renew our military mission against the so-called Islamic State for 12 months. Our objectives remain the same.

We intend to continue to degrade the capacities of the so-called Islamic State, that is, to degrade its ability to engage in large-scale military movement, to operate bases in the open, to expand its presence in the region and to propagate attacks outside the region. [ English ] Specifically, we will extend our air combat mission, that is our air strike capability, our air-to-air refuelling capability, our Aurora surveillance mission, and the deployment of air crew and support personnel. [ Translation ] The government is also seeking the support of the House for its decision to explicitly expand the air combat mission to include Syria.

The government recognizes that ISIL's power base, indeed the so-called caliphate's capital, is in Syria. ISIL's fighters and much of its heavier equipment are moving freely across the Iraqi border into Syria, in part for better protection against our air strikes. In our view, ISIL must cease to have any safe haven in Syria. (1015) [ English ] Let me also be clear that in expanding our air strikes into Syria, the government has now decided we will not seek the express consent of the Syrian government.

Instead we will work closely with our American and other allies who have already been carrying out such operations against ISIL over Syria in recent months. [ Translation ] In asking the House to support the government's decision to renew this mission for the next 12 months, it is our intention for the same period that members of Canada's special forces will continue their non-combat mission to advise and assist the Iraqi forces and increase their capabilities to combat the so-called Islamic State. [ English ] We share the view of President Obama and others that we must avoid if we can taking on ground combat responsibilities in this region.

We seek to have the Iraqis do this themselves and our role there is to help them do that.

Of course, Canada's humanitarian work will go on. [ Translation ] We do not need to choose between fighting the so-called Islamic State and helping its victims. [ English ] We will continue to do both. [ Translation ] I would simply like to conclude by saying this: Canadians know that we cannot make the dangers of the world disappear just by ignoring them. [ English ] Canadians did not invent the threat of jihadi terrorism and we certainly did not invite it, nor as this global threat becomes ever more serious can we protect ourselves, our communities by choosing to ignore it.

That is why a strong majority of Canadians have supported our government's mission against ISIL. Canadians understand that it is not merely in the wider interests of the international community, but specifically in Canada's national interest. [ Translation ] It is never easy to make a decision that requires our men and women in uniform to accept the risks that any mission entails. The recent death of Sergeant Andrew Doiron reminded us that, sadly, these risks are all too real. [ English ] Yet the Canadian Armed Forces never waver in defending our country, our family and our values.

We are humbled and eternally grateful for their service and sacrifice. On Thursday, the House will debate the motion put forward by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for a renewed mission against ISIL. [ Translation ] I ask all members to support this motion. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, asking our brave Canadian women and men in uniform to risk their lives overseas is the most sacred duty that a prime minister has. Seeking approval from this House makes us all responsible for their lives.

Seeking a mandate like this must be undertaken, therefore, with the utmost responsibility. I listened very carefully as the Prime Minister spoke just now, and nothing I heard today has convinced me that the Conservatives are taking this duty with the seriousness it deserves. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we have had this debate before. On September 30, just six months ago, I stood in this House and asked the Prime Minister specifically whether Canadian troops would be involved in directing air strikes in Iraq, in painting targets.

I asked him twice, as a matter of fact, and twice the Prime Minister specifically denied it. We now know that simply was not true. I also asked the Prime Minister if Canadian troops would be accompanying Iraqi forces to the front line. Again, the Prime Minister categorically denied that, and again we now know that simply was not true. They say that truth is the first casualty of war.

It has become clear that the current government has taken that saying to heart. (1020) [ Translation ] Little by little, without any transparency and with one contradictory statement after another by the Prime Minister , the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs , the Conservatives have pushed Canada into a war in Iraq—a war that is not ours to fight. It is a quagmire that has gone on for over a decade, a conflict that has already cost the life of Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron, as the Prime Minister just said. Here we are six months later.

This Prime Minister and this government are now asking for permission to extend the deployment in Iraq and to specifically add—the Prime Minister just said so—Syria as a new theatre of operations. The Prime Minister is asking for our trust so that he can put our troops in danger. Frankly, he has not earned that trust. [ English ] The Prime Minister has not earned that trust because he misled Canadians from the start.

It is simply unconscionable that the current Conservative government would ask for the authority to extend the mission in Iraq when so many things it has told Canadians about the mission up until now have been false. It begs the question: Do they not know the answers or do they not want Canadians to know the answers? The women and men who put their lives on the line deserve better; Canadians deserve better. If we all agree that it is the Prime Minister 's sacred duty to send our troops into war, then it is the official opposition's sacred duty to scrutinize that decision to make sure it is the right one.

Military planners will tell us that, for a mission to succeed, it must have two things. It must have a well-defined objective and a well-defined exit strategy. This mission has neither. The Conservatives simply have no plan. They have no strategy, other than the obvious political one, and that is putting our troops in danger. Our brave men and women are involved in fire fights with ISIS on the ground, contrary to their clear undertaking. For the Prime Minister to still deny that Canadian troops are involved in combat is simply ludicrous.

The death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us all that the risk of deployment on the front line is real. This House cannot turn a blind eye to this fact, despite the Prime Minister 's assertions. The truth is that our allies, the Americans for instance, do not even get close to the front line. In their role of targeting air strikes, the Canadian soldiers are performing a task that so far even the U.S. military has been unwilling to perform. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S.

Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly said that the U.S. would consider directing attacks from the ground but that it has not done so yet. Why not, and why are Canadian troops doing it? (1025) [ Translation ] Clearly, the lack of clear objectives did not stop this Prime Minister from supporting George W. Bush's war in 2003. However, history shows that Canada was right in choosing not to participate at the time. However, it is clear today that our Prime Minister is not at all concerned about the lack of clear objectives.

He seems to want his war in Iraq, just as he wanted it in 2003, regardless of the consequences. Canada initially joined the war in Iraq for a 30-day mission. Thirty days became six months. Now, six months later, the government wants to add another year. What will happen then? That is the question. The Conservatives do not know. Canadians do not know. What is worse, the Conservatives refuse to say. We need to remember Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan, a war that, for Canada, also started with our special forces participating in some very limited operations.

At the time, facing insults and jeers, Alexa McDonough and the NDP caucus asked the government the necessary questions, tough questions. Then, as now, the initial mission transformed over time, which led us into a quagmire, as we predicted.

The deployment in Afghanistan became the longest military mission in Canada's history: 160 soldiers were killed, more than 1,000 were wounded and thousands of others suffered and still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. [ English ] It is the height of irresponsibility for a government to decide to enter a war without a clear plan, without a clear beginning and a well-defined end. However, that is exactly what the Conservatives are doing in Iraq. The government is taking Canada from mission creep to mission leap.

New Democrats are proud to have stood up to the Prime Minister 's misguided war from the very beginning. The fact is that Canada has no place in this war. This is not— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, this is not a UN mission. It is not even a NATO mission. Despite attempts to give appearances to the contrary, it is not a NATO mission. UN missions and NATO missions are the kinds of internationally sanctioned campaigns that New Democrats can and have been able to get behind. In 2011— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. I did not hear any noise when the Right Hon.

Prime Minister was speaking. I will ask members to extend the same courtesy to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, in 2011, when Moammar Gadhafi started dropping bombs on his own civilian population, New Democrats supported the international efforts to protect Libyans. That effort was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Of course, when the mission of protection of the civilian population became one of a so-called regime change, it was New Democrats who asked the right question—to replace it with what? Ask the Americans how that worked out in Benghazi.

Now, years later, with everything we have seen unfold in Libya, it is clear that the NDP was right to ask those questions then. Unlike that original mission in Libya, the war in Iraq does not have the support of the United Nations. Let us be clear about that. Here it is important to note that the UN Security Council has indeed passed three resolutions dealing with Iraq. None authorizes a military mission. However, the Security Council is requiring action on preventing the flow of foreign fighters and financing of terrorist organizations, including ISIS and ISIL.

Pressuring regional governments to prevent financial transfers to them is a real diplomatic effort that Canada can and should prioritize. That would be effective. The truth is that air strikes are being used as an effective recruitment tool for ISIS. (1030) [ Translation ] The United States has been mired in Iraq for over a decade, and the Americans see no light at the end of the tunnel. Would the Prime Minister have us believe that he will be able to successfully use military force to impose a solution in Iraq when everyone else has failed in the past 10 years? I do not think so.

Now the Prime Minister wants to move ahead with this plan and help the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, a war criminal who uses chemical weapons against his own people and bombs schools and hospitals with impunity and without reservation. [ English ] It is especially disturbing to see the Prime Minister now openly considering an alliance of sorts with the brutal dictator and war criminal Bashar al-Assad.

The Prime Minister has already said that any Canadian military involvement in Syria—something the government is now proposing, as members just heard—would require the permission of the Assad regime. This is a regime that continues to commit the most atrocious war crimes. It is a regime that not only uses chemical weapons on civilians, but it uses snipers against women and children. It is a regime that actually collaborated with ISIS.

It is hard to believe the Prime Minister when he says that the mission is about preventing atrocities when he is willing to work with one of the worst perpetrators of atrocities in the world today. Paul Heinbecker, Canada's last ambassador to the UN Security Council, said it best. He said: If out of fear of Islamic State and of a desire to stop them, the Coalition were to ally itself, de facto or de jure, with Bashar al-Assad for fleeting tactical advantage, it would be the ultimate betrayal of the Syrian innocents. And of our own values.

Simply put, our women and men in uniform have no place being in Iraq and they certainly have no place being in Syria. Mark my words, when New Democrats form government on October 19, we are going to pull our troops out. We are going to bring them home. [ Translation ] I am sure that everyone in the House only wants what is best for the Iraqi people, but escalating military action is not going to help the people of Iraq. The insurgents, factions and clans feed off these interventions to radicalize the population, recruit militants and undermine local governments.

These groups, such as the Islamic State, benefit from the weak Iraqi government and the little support it gets from its own people. Iraq is in no position to maintain peace and security within its own borders. More bombs, more destruction and more deaths are not going to change that. [ English ] Canada can play a more positive role in resolving this crisis. We can do that by helping Turkey, our NATO ally, cope with 1.5 million refugees who have poured over its border.

We can do that by using every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to strengthen the political institutions in Iraq, and yes, in Syria. It is simply not enough to say that we have to do something. We need to ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. The question should not be whether it is a combat role or nothing. It is a false choice offered by the Prime Minister . The question should be what is the most effective thing Canada can do. There is a desperate need for humanitarian support.

There were reports from a committee of this Parliament this week of children freezing to death in refugee camps. Canada could have helped with winterizing those camps. There is also a desperate need for greater diplomacy. Local frustrations and ineffective outreach brought about the rise of ISIS. Only effective, inclusive, and representative governance can end the threat from extremism in the region. There is a need for a strong campaign to counter extremist messaging, exposing the brutality of ISIS and the lack of religious basis for its atrocities.

It starts right here at home with proactive engagement with the communities to prevent radicalization. However, that is something that cannot be achieved when the Prime Minister singles out Canada's Muslim population instead of reaching out to its members. (1035) [ Translation ] The motion the government is moving does not do any of that. That is why the official opposition made up of the New Democratic Party of Canada will not support this motion, will not support extending the war in Iraq, and will not support expanding this war to Syria. That is clearly not the right path to take. Mr.

Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Prime Minister 's statement. We have learned a lot over the six months that have passed since the government decided to participate in the war in Iraq. [ English ] Last fall, the Prime Minister stood in this House and told Parliament that Canadian troops were not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat. In the weeks and months that followed, a very different story emerged.

We now know that our 30-day non-combat advise and assist effort became a six-month-long engagement, and then evolved into one in which Canadian troops were active on the front lines, regularly engaging in direct combat. [ Translation ] We learned of the tragic death of Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron, who was killed in the line of duty. That was the first death of a member of the Canadian Forces in this war. I know that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I say that we will continue to pay tribute to Sergeant Doiron and his courage.

Our thoughts remain with his loved ones. [ English ] That tragic loss of life should also serve as an important reminder. At the end of every decision to enter combat stands a brave Canadian in harm's way, because they have the courage to serve and because we made the decision to send them to war. The men and women who serve in our military are well-trained professionals, deeply committed to their country and very good at what they do. We in the Liberal Party have never been opposed to employing the lethal force of which they are capable when it clearly serves Canada's national interest to do so.

We will never be. However, in every case, that national interest must be clearly and rationally articulated. The mission designed to uphold that interest must have transparent objectives and a responsible plan to achieve them. The government has been steadily drawing Canada deeper into a combat role in Iraq. It now wants to expand that war into Syria. Further, it has done all this without clearly articulating the mission's objectives. As a result, neither members of this House nor Canadians have any way to know when or whether we have achieved those objectives.

The Conservatives have no exit strategy beyond an illusory end date set for next March. Involvement in direct combat in this war does not serve Canada's interests, nor will it provide a constructive solution to the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in this region. Now the Prime Minister seeks to deepen our involvement and expand it into the Syrian civil war.

Last fall, because the Prime Minister failed to offer a clear and responsible plan, one that limited our participation to a true non-combat role and better reflected the broad scope of Canada's capabilities, we said that we would not support his motion to go to war in Iraq.

The four core principles we articulated in October still stand today: one, Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian crises in the world; two, when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada; three, the case for deploying our forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear, reliable, dispassionately presented facts; and four, Canada's role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities and how best we can help.

(1040) In the fall, we expressed grave concern that the Prime Minister intended to involve Canada in a longer, deeper combat engagement than he was leading the House to believe at the time. Today, with the government's motion, we know those concerns were well-founded. We will not support the government's decision to deepen this combat mission and expand it into Syria. [ Translation ] Canadians need to know what the Prime Minister is getting them into. The United Nations is telling us that, after four years of all-out war, over 11 million Syrians—over half the population—have been driven from their homes.

Syrians are fleeing their country by the millions, and this exodus of refugees is causing a terrible crisis. In five years of combat, over 210,000 Syrians have been killed, including over 10,000 children. [ English ] Canadians need to know that this is happening in Syria, but they also need to know who is largely responsible. The Syrian people have, for years, been oppressed and terrorized by their own government under the rule of Bashar al-Assad.

This is a man who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens and whose regime is responsible for torturing and killing many more innocent people than even ISIL. [ Translation ] We cannot support a mission that could very well consolidate Assad's power in Syria. [ English ] Beyond our concerns about dubious alliances, the government's desire to expand Canada's presence into Syria represents a worrying trend. We can call it evolution or escalation or mission creep. Whatever term is preferred, the pattern is the same.

First we discovered that our role included ground combat operations, despite the Prime Minister 's assurances to the contrary. Now we are being asked to expand our involvement into Syria. It is hard to believe the proposed timeline, given the public musings of the ministers of defence and foreign affairs. Indeed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explicitly compared this war to Afghanistan, stating that we are in this for the longer term. In Afghanistan, the longer term meant a decade. [ Translation ] I am more sad about this than angry. However, how can we trust a government that so openly misled Canadians?

This government is proposing that the Canadian Forces participate in a vague combat mission with no clear end point, and we cannot support that. [ English ] One thing is clear: Canada has a role to play in the campaign against ISIL. That role must serve our national interests. The one being proposed today by the Prime Minister does not meet that test. (1045) [ Translation ] The Liberal Party that I represent knows that Canadians want to respond to the horrors that the Islamic State is inflicting on people in the region.

Canadians are appalled at the Islamic State's ruthlessness and the terror it is spreading, and rightly so. We understand that feeling and we share it. However, we also know that in a situation as complex and volatile as the one the international community is facing in Syria and Iraq, we cannot let our outrage interfere with our judgment. Canada has an obvious interest in training Iraqi troops in order to fight and eliminate the Islamic State, but it is not in our interest to keep getting more deeply involved in such a combat mission.

We can and we should provide that training far from the front lines. [ English ] Along with our allies and through the auspices of the United Nations, Canada should provide more help through a well-funded and well-planned humanitarian aid effort. The refugee crisis alone threatens the region's security, overwhelming countries from Lebanon to Turkey, from Syria itself to Jordan. Here at home, we should significantly expand our refugee targets and give more victims of war the opportunity to start a new life in Canada.

These calamities are in urgent need of a constructive, coordinated international effort, both through the United Nations and beyond it. It is the kind of effort that ought to be Canada's calling card in the global community. We will have much more to say about this in the days and months ahead. While all three parties have different views on what our role should be, let there be no doubt that we all offer our resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Today the government is asking for the House to support deepening Canada's involvement in the war in Iraq and to expand that involvement into a combat mission in Syria. The Liberal Party will not support the government's motion. The Speaker : I see that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising. Is there unanimous consent to allow her to speak? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: There is no consent.

Committees of the House Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the subject matter of Bill C-583 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The committee requests a 45-day extension to consider it.

(1050) Petitions International Trade Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of my constituents from Guelph that calls on the Canadian government to negotiate with the Chinese government a 10-year multiple-entry tourist and business visa for Canadians visiting China. The petitioners point out that China and the U.S. have already negotiated a reciprocal 10-year visa agreement that benefits the citizens of both of those countries. The petitioners urge the government to level the playing field and obtain this benefit for Canadian citizens as soon as possible.

Palestine Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, violent conflict claims innocent victims. Whatever our view on responsibility and blame, we can all feel compassion for the innocent victims. Hundreds of my constituents have signed a petition calling on the Government of Canada to issue visas necessary for 100 severely injured Palestinian children and their parents or guardians to receive expert medical treatment in Canada.

They note that the Ontario government of Kathleen Wynne, doctors, nurses, and hospitals, including the Kingston General Hospital in my riding, have all committed to help, including waiving fees. The only thing left is to issue visas and to bring these severely injured, innocent Palestinian children here to Canada for treatment.

Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is from petitioners who believe that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They are calling on Parliament to put in place mandatory sentences for those convicted of impaired driving. The petitioners want the offence of impaired driving causing death to be redefined as vehicular manslaughter.

Prostitution Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting calls for tougher laws in this country against prostitution.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the third petition I am presenting, the petitioners note that there was a poll done that determined that 92% of Canadians are against sex selection pregnancy termination. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of gender selection abortions.

Truck Licenses Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Surrey and Newton. The petitioners are calling on the government to revoke Port Metro Vancouver's decision to deny licences for port access to affected trucking companies and drivers. Like the petitioners, I too feel that Port Metro Vancouver's arbitrary selection process under the new truck licensing system is not consistent, fair, or transparent. There are over 50 trucking companies and over 550 drivers who have been shut out of its port and are out of work.

These are good-paying, middle-class jobs. I am worried about more job losses for the people of Surrey and surrounding areas. The provincial and federal governments should work together to end future disruptions and to help these families. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

Endangered Species Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first is to protect the southern resident killer whales of the area around southern Vancouver Island. They are really an important and quite endangered species and are threatened by the use of acoustic instrumentation, seismic testing, and increased vessel transport. Hundreds of my constituents and those from the Vancouver region are calling for the protection of the critically endangered southern resident killer whales.

Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting relates to Bill C-51 , the so-called anti-terrorism act. This one has also been signed by residents from throughout my riding and from London, Toronto, and Ottawa, Ontario.

Canada Post Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions today. The first is in regard to Canada Post Corporation's downgrading of services while at the same time it is increasing the cost of those services and is imposing an additional unnecessary burden on the daily lives of seniors, the disabled, and those residing in rural, remote, or marginalized communities. I have received several thousand signatures so far on the Canada Post issue.

(1055) Home Children Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I choose to present is regarding the British home children. Many British home children and their descendants have been victimized by an immigration policy that unfairly and systematically uprooted families and sought to sever essential yet basic family ties.

Every year, petitioners call on Parliament to offer an unequivocal, sincere, and public apology to those home children who died while being ashamed of their history and deprived of their families, to the living yet elderly home children who continue to bear the weight of that past, and to the descendants of home children who continue to feel the void passed down through generations while they continue to search out relatives lost as a result of a system that, in many instances, victimized them under the guise of protection.

Human Rights Mr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regard to a petition signed by over 200 residents of North Vancouver and the surrounding area. The signatories are asking the Government of Canada to call on the Iranian authorities to release Mohammad Ali Taheri, a prisoner of conscience who is to be tried for “spreading corruption on earth”, a charge that possibly carries the death penalty in Iran. The petitioners also ask that Mr. Taheri be protected from torture and ill treatment while he is wrongfully imprisoned. I am pleased to rise in this House to make the petitioners' concerns about Mr. Taheri's situation known.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ways and Means Notice of Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : 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.

Request for Emergency Debate Marine Transportation S. O. 52 The Speaker : 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. Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : 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.

(1100) Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : 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.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads The Speaker : 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? Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms.

Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) moved: 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. She said: 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?

(1105) 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.

(1110) Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : 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? Ms. Megan Leslie : 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.

(1115) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : 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? Ms. Megan Leslie : 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. Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : 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? Ms. Megan Leslie : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : 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 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 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.

(1120) 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.

(1125) 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 . [ English ] Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : 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? [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : 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. (1130) [ English ] Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : 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. [ English ] Mr.

Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : 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.

(1135) 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.

(1140) Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : 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. Mr. Colin Carrie : 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. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : 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. Mr. Colin Carrie : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague spoke about water purification systems and municipal waste water systems. Over the course of my reading on the cycle of microbeads, I learned that purification and filtration systems are often unable to filter out microbeads because they are too small. This means that they remain in our marine systems. As for the potential upgrades to purification systems, no one was convinced that it would be possible to develop systems effective enough to keep microbeads out. Reducing them at the source is the most effective method.

Does my colleague agree that, in light of the significant costs and the time associated with upgrading purification systems, the most effective strategy is to reduce microbeads at the source? (1145) [ English ] Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr. Speaker, we all realize that sometimes prevention is the best medicine. My colleague from Halifax was quite correct when she stated that the industry is already taking quite substantial voluntary measures to reduce microbeads in their products.

There has been research and work done on including more natural substances, such as using sugar or salt as facial scrubs, using baking soda for polishing teeth, and things along those lines, because prevention is the best medicine. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on today's motion. As we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment , it is something that we believe is important for prioritizing in future reviews.

Our government is committed to ensuring we protect the environment so that all Canadians will have clean air, water, and land and so that these gifts will remain available for their children long into the future. We take our responsibilities as stewards of these natural resources very seriously, and we take a careful, science-based approach when it comes to the rules and regulations that oversee them. There is no difference when it comes to the regulation of the cosmetic industry.

Manufacturers are required to meet strong standards when it comes to assessing any health or safety risks of these products, and they are given a thorough review. My colleague discussed the chemicals management plan in some depth. I would like to add to the debate in terms of Health Canada's role in regulating the cosmetic industry. The Government of Canada has some of the most stringent regulations for cosmetics in the world. Our government restricts or prohibits the use of substances that may cause harm to Canadians, and we respond to emerging issues with a risk-based approach.

When necessary, we act with targeted enforcement and make regulatory changes as needed. Health Canada takes this risk-based approach very seriously in regulating cosmetics and other consumer products. That means that the department considers both the properties of the substance in products as well as the amount that Canadians are exposed to under normal conditions of use to determine whether there is a risk that needs to be addressed.

The motion before us today has raised the question that microbeads and consumer products could have serious harmful effects and proposes that the government take measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. In cosmetics and personal care products, microbeads are made of plastics like polyethylene, polypropylene, and nylon. These substances also have many other known uses in cosmetics, such as acting as binding and bulking agents, stabilizers, film formers, and skin conditioning agents.

All cosmetics sold in Canada must be safe to use and must meet the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the Cosmetic Regulations. A key requirement of the Cosmetic Regulations is that manufacturers or importers must notify Health Canada within 10 days of the first sale of the product, and the notification must include information about the product's formulation. The Cosmetic Regulations also require manufacturers or importers to disclose all ingredients on the product label, using the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients name.

This requirement allows consumers to check for possible ingredients to which they may be sensitive or that they choose to avoid, thereby allowing for more informed decisions regarding product purchase and use. This requirement also helps the department review the product's ingredients for harmful substances. This is the same naming convention used in the European Union and in the United States.

In addition, the labels of approved personal care products include the product's recommended use or purpose, which may include health claims, dosage information, medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients, and any warnings or cautions associated with the product. Health Canada takes into consideration each of these factors when considering the impact on human health. Presently, none of the plastic substances that commonly make up microbeads have raised human safety concerns as currently used in cosmetics.

Canadians can rest assured that if any concerns for human health are identified, Health Canada will take the appropriate action. The ingredients used to make microbeads are considered non-medicinal and will be listed on the product's label. This requirement ensures that Canadian consumers are able to make informed decisions about the personal care products they purchase and use them in the appropriate manner.

Health Canada also has a cosmetic ingredient hot list, which is an administrative tool used to communicate to manufacturers and others that certain substances, when present in a cosmetic, may contravene the general prohibition found in

section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act or a provision of the Cosmetic Regulations.

(1150) Departmental officials closely follow international scientific and regulatory reports and regularly review the safety of cosmetic ingredients. As well, stakeholders are welcome to submit proposed changes to the hot list to Health Canada. As I said from the outset, we take the environmental health of Canadians very seriously. For this reason, in 2006 the government launched the chemicals management plan to strengthen efforts to protect human health and the environment from the risk of chemicals.

This chemicals management plan is a world-leading approach to chemical management that has been widely endorsed by industry and non-governmental organizations alike. It is a joint program between Environment Canada and Health Canada. We heard earlier how many chemicals have been assessed over the last number of years, and it is certainly an extraordinary number. Some of the chemicals that are used to make microbeads are among the chemicals to be assessed in the future under the chemicals management plan, and if concerns are identified, Health Canada will take action.

The reviews that have taken place under this plan are not just an academic exercise. This process is providing real results for Canadians and is resulting in strong action against problem chemicals when they are identified. To date, the plan has resulted in 26 new substances being added to the cosmetic ingredient hot list. In addition, two existing hot list items have been amended to provide more protection for the health of Canadians. In our budget of 2011, the government made sure that the management of chemicals was a top priority.

The chemicals management plan received more than $506 million in additional funding over the next five years, so I think it is very clear that we do take the health and safety of Canadians seriously. The importance of consumer product safety is something that we all share. Under the chemicals management plan, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Cosmetic Regulations, the government addresses such issues as microbeads in cosmetics. If emerging science shows a risk to human health, the government will act swiftly. In conclusion, I think we have good systems in place.

We have science that continues to emerge, and what we need to do is respond to the scientific evidence. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I heard what my Conservative colleagues said. If I am not mistaken, they are going to support the motion. However, there is one thing that concerns me.

How is it that, since microbeads arrived in Canada, the federal government—regardless of which department is responsible for approving this sort of product, whether it be Health Canada or Environment Canada—has never looked at the toxic risk microbeads pose to people's health and the impact they have on the environment? I understand that these products are sold everywhere in the world and that this problem is not exclusive to Canada.

However, I would like to know what process the Government of Canada used in the past to approve the use of these microbeads, which are found in products sold to Canadians and are being released into Canada's environment. (1155) [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there are two things. Our government is very proud of the chemicals management plan that we have in place. There is also the process with Health Canada and the cosmetic industry.

We have indicated that these products are not actually creating harm to human health, but we have heard that there is concern over the plastic going into the environment. We are going to prioritize this issue and do a scientific assessment to determine the best route forward. We have put extraordinary resources, energy, and effort into the chemicals management plan, and it is certainly having very important and significant effects. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the hon. member's speech.

While I understand that the government seems to be approaching this issue from a consumer protection point of view, we on this side of the House believe that it needs to be approached on a broader level. It is quite clear that microbeads are accumulating in our waterways. They are finding their way into plant and animal life. There is no question that these microbeads are having a serious toxic impact on our environment.

Would my hon. colleague agree with me that we need to act quickly, on a precautionary principle basis, to stop the further contamination of our waterways and environment with these microbeads while, as she points out, the government evaluates their safety, or does she think we should wait until there are demonstrable impacts on human health before the government acts? Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, it is important to indicate that there are not demonstrable effects on human health. We will prioritize this issue and make a science-based assessment in terms of the environment.

The New Democrats need to take yes for an answer in terms of the need to look at this issue in regard to the impact on the environment, but it is also important for Canadians to hear that these ingredients are not causing a harmful effect when they currently use them in their cosmetics. We have two things here. One is they are being used and are not creating a harmful effect on humans, but we do need to prioritize and have a look at them and make a decision based on science. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am extremely pleased to learn that the government is going to support our motion. I think that my hon. colleague opposite understands that we are not saying that these plastic microbeads are dangerous if used on one's skin. However, would she agree that we do not let people throw their plastic bags or any other garbage made of plastic into our waterways and that we should do exactly the same thing for all types of plastic waste, which, as we know, pollutes our environment and is dangerous for our ecosystems?

Does she also agree that we should act as quickly as possible to ban all types of plastic from our waterways, as we do with plastic bags and other plastic waste? [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to note is that there was some conversation around the absorption of microbeads and how they can absorb some chemicals. One of the most important things that a government can do, should do, and is doing through our chemicals management plan is assessing and reducing in general any chemicals that are harmful to humans or to the environment.

That is absolutely the most critical thing that the government can be focused on, and is focused on, in terms of chemicals in our environment. Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about microbeads or small plastic beads in consumer products, which enter our environment and can have serious harmful effects. The United Nations Environment Programme looked at plastic waste in the ocean in 2011. Since then, concern has grown over microplastics, particles up to five millimetres in diameter, either manufactured or created when plastic breaks down.

Fish, mussels, seabirds and sea plankton ingest microplastics and that is harmful. A growing concern is the increasing use of microplastics in consumer products, namely microbeads in facial cleansers, gels and toothpaste, which are released into rivers, lakes and the oceans. Microbes have been discovered on microplastics at multiple locations in the North Atlantic. This so-called plastisphere can help the transport of harmful algae species, microbes and pathogens. Microplastics are also a threat to larger organisms such as the endangered northern right whale.

Closer to home, scientists have found millions of these microbeads in just one square kilometre of parts of our Great Lakes as a result of a number of companies adding them to their consumer products. Sometimes microbeads are used to help exfoliate the skin. Other times they are added to products to make them sparkle. Research by the Institute for Environmental Studies found that a 200-millilitre bottle contained as much as 21 grams of microplastics, or roughly one-tenth of its weight.

Microbeads are commonly made of polyethylene or polypropylene and they range in size from .0004 to 1.24 millimetres, making them too small to be filtered out by wastewater treatment plants. As a result, these tiny beads pass through our wastewater treatment filters and end up in our lakes and rivers. These beads are often buoyant and can soak up toxins like a sponge. Since they resemble the size of fish eggs, environmentalists are concerned that the microplastics are making their way into the food chain via fish, birds and mammals.

Scientists have recently raised alarm, warning that microbeads might have harmful effects on human health. For example, some evidence suggests that microbeads can absorb persistent organic pollutants. Research spanning all five Great Lakes was undertaken in 2012 and 2013. Unlike in the ocean where the researchers found “confetti-like” bits of degraded plastic up to five millimetres in size, the researchers trawling the Great Lakes found large amounts of really tiny plastic fragments and beads up to one millimetre. As they followed the flow of the water through the Great Lakes, the plastic count increased.

The highest concentration was found in Lake Ontario with counts of up to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre. There is increasing momentum in the United States to get microbeads out of products. Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass legislation that would outright ban the sale of personal care products that contain microbeads by the end of 2019. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn said: Banning microbeads will help ensure clean waters across Illinois and set an example for our nation to follow.

Lake Michigan and the many rivers and lakes across our state are among our most important natural resources. Chemist Sherri Mason, an associate professor at the State University of New York, who conducted the first study that found microbeads floating in the Great Lakes, said that while she is glad to see Illinois leading the way, she is troubled by the far-off deadline. She said, “The later date means more microbeads are going down the drain before we're really taking the measures that need to be taken”.

(1200) Just this week, Governor Chris Christie signed legislation, making New Jersey the second state in the United States to ban the substances. The law prohibits the manufacturing, sale and promotion in the state of any personal care product with microbeads made from polyethylene. Senator Christopher Bateman said: By signing this bill into law, we are placing our state at the forefront of a national effort to eliminate the dangers this product poses to our environment and our water supply....

The only way to keep our drinking water safe and protect our beautiful rivers and lakes is to stop production and get these items off the shelves. The law would be phased in, beginning with a ban on the production of products containing microbeads in January 2018. By January 2020, people would be prohibited from selling or promoting over-the-counter products containing the substances.

According to Environmental Defence, “A ban is looking promising in Indiana and lawmakers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Maine, California, New York, Ohio and Washington State have also considered, or are considering, new laws banning the beads”. To reiterate, in the United States, two states, Illinois and New Jersey, have passed laws banning the use of microbeads in personal care products. Nine other states are considering similar measures.

In Canada, a private member's bill to ban microbeads has been introduced in Ontario's legislature, but neither the federal government nor the other provinces have taken similar action. In addition to legislative action, the Great Lakes & St.

Lawrence Cities Initiative, a coalition of Canadian and U.S. mayors from 114 cities along the water bodies, has raised awareness about the microbead problem within their communities and pushed companies to eliminate them from their products. “We think we've done a pretty good job”, said executive director David Ullrich, though he acknowledges, “there is always more that the initiative could be doing”. CBC reported in June 2014 that a number of personal care product manufacturers have promised to cut microbeads from their products in the coming years, but dates vary.

In January 2015, Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and the Netherlands issued a joint call to ban the microplastics used in personal care products, saying the measure will protect marine ecosystems and seafood, such as mussels, from contamination. The joint statement was forwarded to the European Union's 28 environment ministers and stated that the elimination of microplastics in products and, in particular, in cosmetics “is of utmost priority”.

According to UNEP: Although it is evident that alternatives to microplastics are available, hundreds of tons of microplastics are still being released onto the EU market each year.

The Netherlands is particularly worried because of concerns that seafood--including its national production of mussels--could suffer from micro-plastic pollution. “There is a still a large degree of uncertainty but what we already know gives us cause for concern,” the Netherlands state in its call for action. “In this case, the precautionary principle applies.” Governments from around the world present at the first UN Environment Assembly adopted a resolution on marine plastic debris and microplastics.

They called for strengthened action, in particular by addressing such materials at the source and requested UNEP to present scientific assessments on microplastics for consideration by the next session of the Assembly. UNEP through the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) is also supporting initiatives such as the “Beat the Microbead”--a phone application that allows consumers to quickly identify personal care products containing microbeads--in its efforts to reduce influx of waste in the marine environment.

(1205) Concern is growing over the threat that widespread plastic waste poses to marine life, with conservative estimates of the overall financial damage of plastics to marine ecosystems standing at U.S. $13 billion each year. The UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director said: Plastics have come to play a crucial role in modern life, but the environmental impacts of the way we use them cannot be ignored.

These reports show that reducing, recycling and redesigning products that use plastics can bring multiple green economy benefits--from reducing economic damage to marine ecosystems and the tourism and fisheries industries, vital for many developing countries, to bringing savings and opportunities for innovation to companies while reducing reputational risks. ...in the polar regions, scientists have recently found tiny pieces of plastic trapped in sea ice. Transported by ocean currents across great distances, these contaminated particles eventually become a source of chemicals in our food.

The key course of action is to prevent plastic debris from entering the environment in the first place, which translates into a single, powerful objective: reduce, reuse, recycle. There have been many reliable reports of environmental damage due to plastic waste: illness or death when ingested by sea creatures such as turtles; entanglement of animals such as dolphins and whales; and damage to critical habitat such as coral reefs. There are also concerns about chemical contamination, invasive species spread by plastic fragments and economic damage to the fishery, fishing and tourism industries in many countries.

What recommendations have been put forth to address this issue? Companies should monitor their plastic use and publish the results in annual reports. Companies could commit to reducing the environmental impact of plastics through clear targets and deadlines, and innovate to increase resource efficiency and recycling. There should be an increased focus on awareness campaigns to discourage littering and prevent plastic waste from reaching the ocean. There should be an application that allows consumers to check whether a product contains microbeads.

This is already available and is expanding its coverage internationally. This is a motion that the NDP brought forward. We heard today that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is asking people to support this motion. It is important. Since plastic particles can be ingested by marine organisms and potentially accumulate and deliver toxins through the food web, efforts should be stepped up to fill the knowledge gap. These beads are affecting our water. The plastics absorb dangerous chemicals and are ingested by fish and other wildlife, causing DNA damage and even death.

The link between the problem and the cause is clear. The beads found in the Great Lakes were tested and were found to have come from products like body wash, facial cleansers and toothpaste. Microbeads is an important issue and this is an important debate. It is really positive to see this Parliament coming together and recognizing this problem. We have not always agreed when it comes to the environment. The government does not have a positive record when it comes to the environment. The 2008 Climate Change Performance Index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions.

In 2009 and again in 2013, The Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrial nations on environmental performance.

(1210) In 2010, Simon Fraser University ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance. It is important that we are coming together and that everyone is saying that microbeads are an important issue. The government also gutted environmental legislation of the last 50 years through economic plans 2012 and 2013, and Bills C-38 and C-45 . It severely cut the budget to Environment Canada and cancelled the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Government scientists have been muzzled.

The government's environmental policies have been criticized by policymakers, scientists, Canadians and the international community, and repeatedly by the prestigious international journal, Nature . Water is the foundation of life, and it is essential for socio-economic systems and healthy ecosystems. The World Bank states that “Water is at the center of economic and social development” and is elemental across economic sectors, including agriculture, energy and industry.

The government stripped federal oversight from thousands of Canadian waterways through Bill C-45 and reduced the protection of thousands of Canadian lakes. Going forward, Canada needs a national water strategy, and our country is well placed to become a global leader in water. For example, the Canadian Water Network, a national network of centres of excellence, can address practical challenges to be a source of new start-up companies and train the next generation of researchers and skilled workers. Canada also has a relatively high level of water infrastructure regulation and water management systems.

The most recent Conference Board of Canada report on the environment ranks Canada 4th of 17 peer countries in water quality. Canada also has a growing number of competitive water companies providing goods and services to world markets. I thank the NDP for bringing this forward. I thank the parliamentary secretary for asking everyone to support this motion.

I also hope the government will work to protect Canada's coastline, establish a network of marine protected areas in Canada's waters, encourage the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources, prioritize clean water, restore our freshwater ecosystems, work to clean up contaminated sediment, and protect and restore essential habitats.

(1215) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important point, which is the cuts to the federal department of environment. While we are all here in this place, surprised in welcoming that the government appears to support this motion to take action on these beads, which can cause harm to the environment, it raises the question of the tens of thousands of toxins that have yet to be added to the list, let alone regulated. I include industrial mercury, which, to its credit, the Alberta government has regulated to require capture in the coal-fired power industry.

Canada still has not. Could she speak to the urgency of the issue and the capacity to possibly fast-track this through, given the fact that we already have a lot of documented evidence? Clearly, Europe is moving forward and some of the United States. We already have the Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue that could serve as one mechanism we could use to move this matter forward more expeditiously. Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work on the environment over decades. She raises important points. There have been large cuts to Environment Canada.

We need our scientists, and we need them to freely speak. I used to consult for Environment Canada. It is heartbreaking when I return to a building that used to be filled with scientists, but where there are now empty floors, and I can name the building. It is sad when scientists cannot speak freely about their findings. We need to base any policies on good, scientific evidence. We need the science. We need scientists to speak freely. As my colleague says, the U.S. is moving forward. Legislation was passed yesterday. Europe is moving forward. This is an important motion and we need to support it.

(1220) Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke North for her support of this motion. However, I would like to make a clarification and then ask a question. The member talked about a number of states in the United States of America that had taken action on this. I want to clarify that in fact only one, the state of Illinois, has taken action although many other states are considering doing so.

Similar legislation is being discussed in Ohio, New York, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Jersey, but none of these states have yet put in place legally binding controls or prohibitions. Would the member for Etobicoke North , and my friend from the environment committee for a number of years, agree that Canada should continue to collaborate with the one state that has legislated on the issue, Illinois, as well as the others that, like Canada, are considering such legislation? Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr.

Speaker, my friend across the way and I had a good working relationship on the environment committee. When I was writing this speech late last night, in the wee hours of the morning, I found out that Governor Chris Christie had passed legislation on microbeads yesterday. It is important that we always work with scientists from the United States and from around the world. Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is amazing. I know the environment file in general concerns her very much.

I am a bit worried because the two parliamentary secretaries who spoke earlier talked about health effects on humans as being a de facto condition of a substance being written down in Canadian law for the protection of the environment. However,

article 64 says that the risk can be posed to the environment or to human health. I am not sure if the government members understand that these are not two conditions that have to be met together, but that they are different conditions. It is either a health condition on human beings or on human health in general, or environmental risks. Would my colleague comment on that? Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in the precautionary principle. We take action when there is evidence that something may be harmful.

The Liberal Party has consistently promoted policies aimed at protecting Canada's waterways. As I have said repeatedly, we will support this motion. Environment and industry experts agree that microbeads must be phased out of use. A similar ban in the U.S. received bipartisan support and an Ontario Liberal member of the provincial legislature introduced a bill on March 9 to phase out microbeads. In 2011, the Liberal Party pledged to introduce a Canadian freshwater strategy that would address pollution in the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, the St. Lawrence River and other major bodies of water.

In 2012, the party made the creation of a national water policy a priority resolution for our party.

(1225) Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine . My speech on microbeads, small pieces of plastics found in consumer products like facial cleaners, shower gels and toothpastes, begins in the year 1997, 18 years ago, in the waters off the northeast coast of Newfoundland.

An incident came to mind the instant I heard of this opposition day motion, outlining how microbeads could have serious health impacts and calling on the government to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the federal government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The year 1997 was the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland, and a great year in the history of the world it was, Newfoundland and Labrador being the God's country that it is.

To mark the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's historic voyage from Bristol, England to Bonavista, Newfoundland, a recreation of the Cabot's ship, The Matthew , was built and sailed from Bristol to Bonavista. I was in Bristol back then as a young journalist covering the launch of The Matthew for The Telegram , the daily newspaper in St. John's, Newfoundland. Hundreds of thousands of people watched The Matthew sail down the River Avon, and what a sight it was. Thousands more people were in Bonavista, Newfoundland weeks later, including the Queen of England, when The Matthew sailed into Bonavista.

It was a grey and foggy day, just like the great Newfoundland song Grey Foggy Day . Once The Matthew arrived in Newfoundland, over a period of several more weeks she proceeded to circumnavigate the island of Newfoundland. Every day Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, from secretaries to plumbers, lawyers to businessmen and reporters to politicians, took overnight trips on The Matthew from one leg to the next, one community to the next. I sailed on The Matthew on the first overnight leg from Bonavista to nearby Grates Cove. That memory will always be with me.

The Matthew was a wooden caravel, 78-feet long, weighing 50 tonnes, and she bobbed in the North Atlantic like a cork in a bottle. It was nasty weather. Old-timers called that kind of weather a “capelin squall”, a mixture of bone-chilling winds, rain and fog that typically hammers the Newfoundland coast in late June just as the capelin are coming inshore to spawn. I took my turn at the wheel, and I was on the deck of The Matthew the next morning when the sun rose and finally started to bum the fog to shreds. The very first thing I saw in the waters off Grates Cove was a plastic shopping bag.

I will never forget it. I can say with certainty that John Cabot did not see a plastic shopping bag floating in the ocean. As legend has it, he was too busy dropping buckets over the side of The Matthew , pulling in cod. On a side note, there is a news story out today about how it may be another 10 years before the moratorium on northern cod is lifted, cod like John Cabot caught in buckets. By then, the ban on commercial fishing on northern cod, which was first brought down in 1992, will have lasted 33 years.

As a Newfoundland and Labrador MP, I make it a point at every opportunity to hammer home to the government and the third party in the House that it will have been 33 years since the greatest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador failed as a result of complete mismanagement. My apologies for yesterday during question period in this House when I lost it in my seat after a Conservative MP, the MP for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission , said that his government's management decisions are “always based on science”. My apologies for reacting to such a ridiculous statement. I should be used to such ridiculous statements.

It is the fire in my belly. I apologize for that. Under the Conservative government, scientists are known more for being muzzled than anything else. Let us get back to plastics. As I said at the start, microbeads are small, manufactured pieces of plastic used in consumer products, as has been pointed out, like facial cleansers, shower gels, and toothpaste. Microbeads have been found in high concentrations in the Great Lakes.

If they are found there, in the Great Lakes, one can bet a bushel of plastic bags that they are found in the North Atlantic, in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, in the waters off the east coast, in the waters off the Maritimes. There is a bid by Memorial University, the university in Newfoundland and Labrador, to study ocean plastics waste and codfish consumption in Newfoundland to see if there is a correlation between microbeads and the codfish we consume. Let us hope that the study actually goes through.

New Democrats, my party, believe that the best way to deal with pollution is to prevent pollution in the first place. It is hard to argue with that. Microbeads were first patented for use as cleaners in 1972, but it was not until the 1960s that manufacturers started using them to replace more natural materials, such as almonds, oatmeal, and sea salt. Alternatives to microbeads do exist. Because of that, they are not considered an essential ingredient in cosmetics and personal care products.

If microbeads are not essential, and if they are known to cause harm to fish and other wildlife, are known to cause asphyxiation or the blockage of organs in marine mammals, and are found in fish that is eaten by people, why are we allowing microbeads? Have we not learned yet that we put people first? We put people first by putting the environment first. Have we not learned that we put people first by preventing pollution in the first place? In recent years, a $171-million sewage treatment plant has been built in St. John's, in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

However, waste water treatment plants like the Riverhead treatment plant, again in my riding, are not able to filter out microbeads, because microbeads are too small, and they are buoyant. There are hundreds of communities around Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have sewage treatment plants. Hundreds. Upgrading the $171-million treatment plant in St. John's would cost tens of millions of dollars more. Where would that money come from? There are no known ways to effectively remove microbeads, microplastics, after they make their way into the environment.

(1230) What do we want? What do New Democrats want with regard to microbeads? We want the government to take immediate action to designate microbead plastics toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That would allow the Government of Canada to regulate, phase out, and eliminate the use of microbeads used or produced in Canada. Already, as has been pointed out, two states in the United States have banned the use of microbeads in personal care products. Countries around the world are doing the same. Here at home, a private member's bill has been introduced in Ontario.

However, we need federal regulation, one law for all provinces and territories. What do New Democrats want? We want a clean environment. We want healthy fish. We want healthy people. New Democrats want a level playing field for all businesses that manufacture products containing microbeads. What do I want as a member of Parliament for Newfoundland and Labrador, for St. John's South—Mount Pearl? Number one, I would like the fish to come back. I wish the fish had come back two years after the moratorium, as John Crosbie predicted. I would like that to happen, but it is not predicted for another 10 years.

That is what I want. An equally important wish is for the Conservatives, the Government of Canada, to become better stewards of the environment. More and more, the Conservative government is failing the environment.

(1235) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, these microbeads, which absorb toxic substances, could have a negative impact on the health of consumers since they are found in fish and other marine animals, which are then eaten by people, I would like the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl to tell me how many people in his riding eat fish and marine animals that live in our environment and could therefore be affected by the chemicals transported by these plastic microbeads in the food chain. [ English ] Mr. Ryan Cleary : Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

What is the percentage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who eat fish? I will answer simply this way: all of them. I know that the MP for St. John's East and his family eat fish. As I mentioned in my speech, Memorial University is looking at doing a study on the impact of microbeads on the environment and in terms of our recreational cod fishery, which happens twice a year in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Newfoundland and Labrador recreational cod fishery is more limited than it is in the maritimes.

I do not necessarily agree, but the reason it is more limited is that we have more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who fish cod and eat cod. To sum up, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians love their fish. Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from my colleague from the NDP on pollution and the environment and the responsibility we have as a chamber to deal effectively with that. However, I have one question, and it is not a simple one.

The member was saying that he looks forward to the cod coming back, as we all do in Atlantic Canada. I also expect that the hon. member knows the relationship cod has with shrimp. It is the main predator for shrimp and shellfish. Does the member realize that when cod comes back, the shrimp fishery will not be the fishery it is today? The reason the shrimp fishery is failing now, besides a bit of overfishing, is that cod is on the way back. Mr. Ryan Cleary : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, although I had no idea that the hon. member was a scientist.

I had no idea that he had studied the ecosystem of the North Atlantic and the relationship between cod and shrimp. It is good news. I am on the House of Commons committee on fisheries and oceans, and I