Christine Moore

[Health, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ habit of missing target dates goes beyond missions.

Today is the first anniversary of the expiry of the health accords signed in 2004. Instead of sitting down with the provinces to negotiate new accords and improve our health care system, the government chose to deprive the provinces of $36 billion in transfers.

Why did the minister not make the effort to sit down with the provinces to try to renew the accords?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my leader said. We should not be in Iraq, let alone in Syria. We have no business there.

Is dropping bombs and training soldiers on site the only way to fight ISIL? I hardly think so.

Unfortunately, government members and, it would seem, the Liberal Party, believe that the only way to fight a scourge such as ISIL is by dropping bombs. I do not believe that. I believe that there are many diplomatic and humanitarian options available, and that is a much more appropriate role for us.

Several countries in the coalition have chosen to play that kind of role. One example is Norway, which is limiting its involvement to humanitarian work.

Fighting ISIL is not just about dropping bombs and training soldiers. This is a much more complex matter that needs to be seen from a big-picture perspective.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there are many other things we could be doing besides dropping bombs. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to explain all of them. However, I can assure the House that there are many such things.

Does the member opposite believe that in order to take action against ISIL, we must close our eyes to those we are taking action against and the people we could be helping?

Is it right that the member wants to send our soldiers into combat alongside Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, when their policies fly in the face of what Canada has always stood for?

Is it right that the government is sticking its head in the sand, rather than thinking about what other terrorist groups could be next to replace this one?

Is it right that the government is sticking its head in the sand, knowing that it will be fighting alongside Bashar al-Assad, even though he has killed thousands of people?

The government is sticking its head in the sand. It refuses to see that this is a quagmire, that the situation in Iraq and Syria is far from being simple and the solution is nowhere near as simple as dropping bombs.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion to extend and expand the mission in Iraq and, now, into Syria. The Islamic State terrorist organization has committed atrocious acts of violence in Iraq and Syria. The violence has displaced 2.5 million civilians in Iraq alone, and 5.2 million people require humanitarian assistance. Over 5,000 people have been killed by ISIL.

Needless to say, the official opposition acknowledges that ISIL is committing unprecedented atrocities. We find them extremely upsetting. Of course, that organization has demonstrated the kind of cruelty it is capable of on many occasions.

With respect to this mission, we have gone from a mission focused on advice and support to a six-month bombing mission, and now, a front-line combat mission. The Conservatives can have fun playing their word games, but when one of our soldiers is 200 metres from the front lines, that means that he is within range of the basic weapons of any soldier. Any soldier is capable of hitting a target that is 200 metres away with a basic weapon, which, for the Canadian Forces is the C7 rifle. When our soldiers are 200 metres from the front lines, that looks very much like a combat mission. We are now entering a conflict that will last a year and a half, without any specific or clearly defined plan or objective and with no exit strategy.

By choosing to bomb Iraq, and now Syria, I unfortunately get the feeling that we are just playing into ISIL's hands. They would not just brazenly provoke the enemy by showing the beheadings of Canadians or citizens of allied countries without hoping for retaliation. No one can tell me that ISIL did these things thinking there would be no retaliation. On top of that, they send out messages calling on members of ISIL who are abroad to carry out attacks against those who would fight this group. Clearly, Canada is already on ISIL's list of enemies and, unfortunately, it is clear that ISIL wanted retaliation, that it wanted to provoke something by committing such atrocities in such a brazen way.

Another thing that seems clear to me is that ISIL wanted there to be air strikes. It knew full well that we would not attack them on the ground and that an attack from the air is much easier to manage. This allows them to adjust their strategy, continue to advance and make gains if they are patient enough and, while the air strikes are being conducted, plan overseas operations.

ISIL reacted to the air campaign by dispersing its troops, sheltering in civilian areas and frequently changing location. While the first air strikes targeted ISIL's bases and camps, more recent efforts targeted vehicles and the industrial infrastructure controlled by the militants.

From the beginning of the conflict, several Canadian and American veterans made it clear that air strikes have their limitations and that at some point it would become increasingly difficult to conduct air strikes on targets without running the risk of causing collateral damage that would obviously have a very negative impact on the local population.

We have to understand that the Islamic State realizes full well that the Iraqi and Syrian people would be very averse to the presence of foreign troops on their soil. When the enemy only carries out air strikes, it is easy to use that against us with the civilian population. The enemy tells the local people to look at what the coalition is doing: destroying their institutions and attacking them. The enemy tries to manipulate the local population in order to win it over. Unfortunately, when the local population is sleep-deprived, cold and hungry, it is much easier to manipulate, especially if, at the same time, some help is offered.

We have to understand that the more we bomb, the more innocent civilians risk being killed or injured and the more we risk helping the Islamic State obtain recruits or convince people to join its cause. Every bomb could aggravate the problem we are trying to solve.

What is worse is that, even if we succeed in completely eliminating the Islamic Sate, there is a high risk that we will have helped one of our enemies who is also an enemy of our enemy, the Islamic State. Right now, we are fighting the Islamic State with countries such as Iran, for example. Most members and I can easily see that Canada and Iran have very different views on human rights. Is it really a good idea to fight the enemies of our enemies? Is that our strategy in the Middle East, to ensure that only the least offensive of our enemies remains? If we think we are going to solve the problem in the Middle East with violence, then we may as well announce the beginning of the third world war. Do I have to remind members why they need to remember World War II? It is precisely because when that war ended, humanity realized that, if there were a third world war one day, it was quite likely that the human race would not survive it.

If we want to eliminate the problem in the Middle East through violence then we will have to eliminate nearly all of the terrorist organizations there. However, as soon as we eliminate one group, another one rises up to take its place. When will it end? When we find the perfect recipe for self-destruction?

There are other ways of engaging in war that do not necessarily include bombs. Those ways would not make us play into the hands of ISIL. To wage any war, there needs to be money, resources, weapons and support, or at least public disengagement. There has to be some means of communication, fighters, an organization and an enemy. To eliminate the conflict, or at least work on it, there has to be a strategy to prevent these groups from obtaining the funding they need.

The vast majority of these groups raise money by selling resources such as oil and conflict stones, as well as growing and producing drugs. Currently, in the case of ISIL, we are also seeing the sale of historical artifacts. Of course, these groups have no regard for environmental principles when conducting these activities.

ISIL is currently still able to sell oil to fund itself. Imagine if we managed to stop them from getting money. No organization can survive when its soldiers have nothing to eat.

There are many other things we could be doing, including blocking access to weapons and supporting the local population. Imagine if we could help all of the refugees by getting all of them to NATO countries, and just think what could happen if Turkey could control its border and prevent radicalized people from entering Syria. There is so much we could do. We could fight, disrupt the organization and prevent it from communicating.

In closing, as long as the coalition is considered an enemy, ISIL will be able to continue recruiting more fighters. In contrast, if we could be perceived as a potential partner for peace, that would strike a much harder blow against ISIL than the bombs we are dropping. That strategy has its limits.

[Health, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Roy Romanow, the former chair of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, told us that our health care system has reached a turning point.

The Conservatives' inaction is leading us straight towards privatization of the system and an increase in costs. That is in addition to their cuts in transfers to the provinces. Our health care system needs leadership.

When will the Conservatives sit down with the provinces to ensure that our universal health care system is sustainable?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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