House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pesticide.

Topics

Witness Protection Program ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, as the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, it is an honour and a privilege for me to introduce in this House a bill designed to extend the witness protection program to spouses whose life is in danger.

This will help men but it will help women even more. The fact is that 80% of victims of criminal assault are women, and half of these assaults are committed by ex-spouses.

My sincere thanks to the member for Prince George—Peace River for his considerable help in developing this bill. I think that all members of this House would do well to support it. I personally invite them to support this bill that, I am convinced, will better protect men and women who are victims of assault.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Witness Protection Program ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Norman Doyle Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could revert to presenting reports from committees. I was standing at the time of presenting reports from committees, but you failed to notice me.

Witness Protection Program ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I apologize to the hon. member. I did not have anything on my list and I did not see the hon. member rise.

Is it agreed to revert to presenting reports from committees?

Witness Protection Program ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Norman Doyle Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on citizenship issues, entitled “Procedures on how to review Order in Council appointments”.

National Peacekeepers' Day ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day.

Mr. Speaker, with my colleague, I am pleased to introduce a bill which, if passed, would create on August 9 of every year a National Peacekeepers' Day. It was some 32 years ago, on August 9, 1974, that nine Canadian Forces peacekeepers en route from Beirut to Damascus were killed by a surface to air missile. They represent the several hundred peacekeepers who have been killed serving Canada and the world in this capacity.

Inasmuch as my riding was once the riding of Lester B. Pearson, I think it is most appropriate that this bill be sponsored by the member from the riding, and it is especially appropriate at this time, as we discuss Canada's role in Afghanistan, to remind ourselves that Canada's place in the world is indeed that of peacekeeping.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I believe you would find the unanimous consent of the House for the following. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order and usual practice of the House, at the start of government orders on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 the House consider a government motion in the name of the Prime Minister:

That,

(1) whereas this House on April 10, 2006 debated a motion in support of Canada's significant commitment in Afghanistan,

(2) whereas Canada's commitment in Afghanistan is an important contribution, with that of more than 30 other countries, to international efforts under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO,

(3) whereas these international efforts are reducing poverty, enhancing human rights and gender equality, strengthening civil society and helping to build a free, secure and self-sustaining democratic state for all Afghan men, women and children, and

(4) whereas Canada's commitment in Afghanistan is consistent with Canada's support of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights around the world,

this House support the government's two year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension;

and that no member shall speak for more than 20 minutes and that following each speech a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto; any member may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; that during debate, the Speaker shall not receive any amendments, dilatory motions, quorum calls, or requests for unanimous consent; and when no member rises to speak or after six hours of debate, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion; that no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 be taken up this day; and that the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting, Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 9 a.m.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Temiskaming First Nation Aboriginal CommunityPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House a petition signed by several dozen people in my riding. They are asking that the Temiskaming First Nation aboriginal school at Notre-Dame-du-Nord remain open and receive additional funds to enable it to operate so that a roadblock on the road through the aboriginal community of Temiskaming First Nation at Notre-Dame-du-Nord can be avoided.

Bill C-222PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

May 16th, 2006 / 10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to table two petitions on behalf of the people of Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

The first petitions calls upon the House of Commons to enact Bill C-222, an act to recognize and protect Canada’s hunting, trapping and fishing heritage, to ensure the rights of present and future Canadians to enjoy these activities are protected in law.

TaxationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to eliminate the federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline used in farming operations and commercial fisheries, to cap the amount of tax it collects on gasoline and to eliminate the practice of applying the GST to provincial fuel tax and federal excise tax, a practice that charges tax on top of tax.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Conservative

Rod Bruinooge ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, beginning on the 22nd day of April (Earth Day) next:

(a) all pesticides which are regulated pursuant to the Pest Control Products Act be banned: (i) within a dwelling-house; (ii) on any parcel of land on which a dwelling-house is situated; (iii) on any place that is within one hundred metres of a parcel of land described in paragraph (ii); (iv) in any school, hospital, office or similar building in which members of the public customarily stay for more than a day or work; or (v) on any private or public land that is customarily used by members of the public as visitors, licensees or in any other authorized capacity for recreation or entertainment, including but not limited to parks and sports grounds;

(b) that this ban not apply to a building used for the husbandry of animals, the cultivation of plants or the storage, processing, packaging or distribution of plants or animals or products made primarily from plants or animals, or in the immediate vicinity of such a building;

(c) that this ban not apply to a control product used within an enclosed building: to purify water intended for the use of humans or animals; to control or destroy a health hazard; to control or destroy pests that have caused an infestation; for commercial agricultural purposes; as a wood preservative; or, as an insect repellent for personal use; and

(d) that should further exemptions be sought to this pesticide ban, then the onus to prove safety shall be placed on the manufacturer to show to the satisfaction of both the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, through scientific and medical evidence, that an exemption is justified.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

I rise to speak on behalf of all New Democrats to our motion to ban the use of pesticides used for cosmetic purposes in private homes and public spaces, a motion that I am pleased to have rest in my name.

In so doing, I would like to recognize the important work being done on this issue by our members for Winnipeg Centre, Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Victoria.

Only five countries in the world use more pesticides per capita than Canada. This is an issue that impacts our environment and the very health of Canadians, which is why New Democrats are calling upon parliamentarians from all parties to support the motion and take a positive step forward on the issue together.

In backyards and school yards, parks, gardens, green spaces across Canada, a toxic cocktail of cancer causing chemicals are being used to kill weeds and pests. While these carcinogens are very effective at keeping our yards and public spaces looking green, they are far from being green. We are talking about pesticides that in many cases may have life-altering implications, not just in the near term but decades down the road, such as immune system damage, reproductive damage, skeletal abnormalities, skin damage and cancer.

As the Canadian Cancer Society has said:

Since ornamental use of pesticides has no countervailing health benefit and has the potential to cause harm, we call for a ban on the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens.

Why does the federal government continue to allow these cancer causing pesticides to be used? These chemicals are seeping into our soil, leaching into the water we drink, being absorbed by our homes, harming our bodies and claiming the lives of our children.

Only yesterday we watched as a warehouse fire broke out near the village of Debden, Saskatchewan. The fire burned pesticides and placed hundreds of school children at potential health risk. This dramatic example shows the importance not only of safe pesticide storage but the threat that chemicals such as these can pose.

We have known for quite some time that pesticides have long-term effects that are both serious and harmful. It is our young people, our children, who suffer the terrible consequences. Despite the accumulation of evidence, the range of harmful, and readily accessible, chemical products continues to grow.

Until now, the federal government has not taken any measures to regulate cosmetic pesticides, even though their harmful and serious effects on Canadians are indisputable. It is time for that to change.

The wait and see attitude of past governments puts more and more Canadians at risk. The science is in. Enough time has been wasted. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to do what is right for our communities and the families that we represent, the people who rely on us to be their voice in this place. It is time to take concrete action to ban the use of these unnecessary cosmetic pesticides, which is why New Democrats are moving this motion.

That is why we are calling on the pesticide manufacturers to prove that their products are in fact safe before they can be marketed to the Canadian public. Just as the government oversees and regulates the use of drugs, the use of pesticides must be held to similar government oversight.

By reversing the onus of proof with proper scientific and government oversight, we will move Canada toward a greener, cleaner future that is healthier for our children and our grandchildren.

Our actions have real and serious consequences for the environment, which is our country's greatest asset.

It is obvious that the environment is not one of the Prime Minister's five priorities. While the former Liberal government adopted an approach that favoured press releases over policies, the Conservatives have adopted the approach of eliminating programs and then waiting to see what happens.

They cut programs and have no plans for replacing them with something more effective. We must fill that void with meaningful measures and respect the commitments made to our citizens and to the entire world. Canada must set an example. By banning cosmetic pesticides, we will be taking a step in the right direction.

Today I am calling on the Prime Minister, the government and all members of the House to support this motion for the health of our children and of all Canadians.

With no action forthcoming from the federal government, as so often is the case, citizens and communities are taking steps ahead of government, from Vancouver to Toronto, from Montreal to Halifax. In over a hundred communities large and small across Canada, municipalities have already taken action on the use of these deadly substances.

In spite of fierce opposition, my own home town—Hudson, Quebec—introduced the first such ban in the country.

This ban weathered the attacks and court challenges. It was ahead of its time. We should follow the example of Hudson and all other communities where the citizens have claimed their right to live without carcinogenic pesticides. Their actions are a source of inspiration for us all. Every member must demonstrate good citizenship by adopting this motion today.

Even the Supreme Court became involved in the Hudson case and ruled that the precautionary principle was an important factor that all legislators at all levels should consider in decision making. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, of which I had the honour to be the president at one time, intervened in the case to support Hudson, a case that was initiated by a group of women in Hudson who were concerned about the health of their kids and started a petition about 15 years ago.

In those communities where bans are in effect, gardens are still in bloom, green spaces still flourish, landscapers and weed control specialists provide alternatives to pesticides and more jobs. The result is not just the appearance of healthy gardens but in fact healthy places for plants to grow, for children to play and for Canadian families to enjoy nature without the threat of toxic consequences.

Some in this place will argue today, I am sure, that this is enough, that we should abandon Canadians in their communities to deal with this deadly issue on their own but that is simply not good enough. Not every municipality is able to adopt the measures that some municipalities have done but every Canadian deserves to live free from the use of cosmetic pesticides. The health of Canadians simply has to come first. It is time that the federal government, indeed, it is time that members of this House stood up to protect the people of Canada from exposure to pesticides that we know are harmful to the health of the most vulnerable among us.

As Margaret Sanborn, of McMaster University, said, “Pesticides are designed to kill something and that should be a cause of concern”.

It turns out that those pesticides are killing our kids.

The motion that we brought forward is not revolutionary in practice but its practice may well revolutionize the impact that the toxins and the carcinogens found in pesticides are having on the health of Canadians, most particularly, children and pregnant women.

This is a good first step that the federal government can take to protect all Canadians from chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, disease and sickness. It is a measure we can take today to help clean our environment for tomorrow.

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for introducing a very positive measure. I have two quick questions that will actually help me sell the motion.

First, I think it would help the public if he could give some examples of the chemicals involved and the technical proven risks of them. I am sure he has some of that data and I think it would help everyone who is listening today.

Second, does the member know if the present FCM has a position on this?

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions, comments and for highlighting the role of FCM. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, when I had the opportunity to be the president of the organization, was very active on this issue and intervened in the Supreme Court case in order to help the town of Hudson, which is down the road toward Montreal where I grew up, to get the right to pass the kind of measure that we are talking about here today for all of Canada. The federation's leadership should be noted.

In addition, the federation has extensive programs now so that municipalities can move from the traditional practices to more sustainable forms of gardening and lawn care, et cetera, in their member municipalities.

With regard to examples of the chemicals, my goodness, the list would be awfully long but we certainly would want to highlight chemicals such as 2,4-D as being a cause for concern. It apparently is one that will be made available once again.

I recall the time when I had the opportunity to be on a global panel to examine the impact of persistent organic pollutants. The Innu spoke to us about how the toxic pesticides used over the years in our societies in the developed urban centres had made their way all the way into the mother's milk of the Innu. Even though they do not produce the compounds and do not have lawns, they were the ones suffering the most from our chemicals. These chemicals, when we use them on our lawns, can be transported to people far away in time, in place and in circumstance with devastating results.

The motion we proposed calls for us to take responsibility for some of these impacts and to prevent them in the future.

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the member's position.

In my nine years in local government I worked with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was also involved with Communities in Bloom, which is a national organization concerned with pesticides, horticulture and community beautification. This discussion has taken place in many council chambers throughout our country.

Could the member clarify his views on integrated pest management and how that would play within his proposal?

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reference to integrated pest management, IPM as we came to know it in the debates many years ago.

My first personal interaction with this whole concept actually had to do with how we could better deal with cockroaches in apartment buildings. I was advocating for tenants. Their apartments were being sprayed and the cockroaches were being forced from one apartment unit to the next. Many of the residents were complaining about the impact of the toxic chemicals that were being used.

Sure enough, I was chairing the Toronto Board of Health at the time. We brought forward a proposal that would not only virtually eliminate the cockroaches, but would also eliminate the toxic compounds that were being used. It produced a terrific result in terms of that whole approach. Apartment buildings became a lot more liveable as a result.

The fact is that there have been wonderful initiatives with municipal governments working with organizations like the FCM and Communities in Bloom to find ways to reduce the requirement and in fact not to require at all the use of toxic compounds while still producing beautiful gardens.

In my most recent visit to Halifax, which is one of the larger communities to show real leadership, I saw absolutely stunning gardens. There is lots of employment in the industry to keep those gardens looking beautiful. It has legislation in place which is not dissimilar to what we are proposing for the whole of Canada.

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support this motion and speak today to this matter, which is extremely important to Canadians.

It is already six years since the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that the federal government should give absolute priority to protecting human health and the environment by applying the precautionary principle in all pest management decisions.

As in many other areas, the Liberals did nothing. It is high time now for this federal government to act in the interest of Canadians and not in the interest of the chemical companies.

Canadians expect the government to act in their interest to reduce the presence of pesticides in the environment. For many years now, communities all across Canada have been exploring ways of encouraging the choice of lower-risk products and reducing the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, that is to say, products that are not necessary to protect health.

Having been a city councillor in previous years, I am familiar with the efforts that many of these municipalities and cities have made. Six years ago, for example, the people of Victoria, known as the “garden city”, started a campaign for a bylaw against pesticides. They got organized, did their research, had scientists come, and demonstrated to a great majority of city council that pesticides were not necessary to have beautiful gardens and lovely lawns. A process is now underway, as a result, to restrict the use of pesticides, as is the case in many other cities in Canada.

The province of Quebec has also taken steps to reduce the use of certain pesticides in order to protect the health of Quebeckers and the environment.

All Canadians are entitled to this kind of protection. They are entitled to equitable protection and a less toxic environment. Municipal governments and some provincial governments have taken steps to fill the gap left by the federal government’s absence from this important area.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Ms. Gélinas, issued a stinging critique of the federal government’s management of pesticides. She said:

—the federal government is not managing pesticides effectively...the federal government still cannot ensure that the older pesticides we are using are safe—

She added that the public is concerned about the dangers of pesticides and that, as a result of her audit, she is concerned as well.

According to her audit, for example, the federal government is not adequately ensuring that many pesticides used in Canada meet current standards for protecting public health and the quality of the environment. She discovered major flaws in the regulation and evaluation of a new pesticide. She also revealed that many products are approved in an unsatisfactory way.

She noted as well that the product evaluation methods are not up to date and that the re-evaluation of older but still widely-used pesticides proceeds at a very slow pace in Canada.

She also said:

It is likely that some pesticides on the market that have not yet been re-evaluated will also fail to meet today's standards.

The federal government’s inaction in this matter is appalling.

The reasons for this motion and the need for action are clear. The Ontario College of Family Physicians has verified positive associations between pesticide exposure and cancers of the brain, prostate, kidney and pancreas, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, nervous system disorders, birth defects, and other developmental disorders. The doctors' orders are clear: Avoid exposure to all pesticides whenever and wherever possible.

I would like to read to the House, which is largely male dominated, a quote by Dr. Paul Claman, clinical director of reproductive medicine at the University of Ottawa, who said, “Scientific evidence links landscaping pesticides to impaired male fertility”. I will just leave that for the reflection of the many men in this House.

Close to 70,000 Canadians will die of cancer this year and 149,000 will be diagnosed. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars seeking a cure, and yet the government hesitates on a simple act of prevention.

We may hear today from some members who are skeptical about the science, that the science is not absolute. They will point to studies that purport to raise doubts about the link between pesticides and cancer, birth defects and other health problems. Of course, science is rarely absolute. However, there is some absolute science out there about pesticides. In large doses they are poison. Where the science is not absolute is with respect to safe doses. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that a safe dose exists.

This motion reverses the onus in favour of Canadians' health and the environment by requiring scientific and medical proof, assessed in a public forum instead of behind closed doors, that a chemical is safe. This is the precautionary principle where there is persuasive reason to believe that some harm can be done, preventive measures are taken. We do not do that enough. We must prevent health problems before they occur. This is not just precautionary, it is just common sense.

The most compelling argument is that it is entirely unnecessary. Simple cost effective measures and alternatives exist. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself argues that by simply using a mixture of grasses instead of a monoculture lawn, homeowners can avoid pesticides and use less water, less fuel, less maintenance and less money on their lawns.

If hon. members want proof, they can just walk outside these doors to the front lawn of Parliament Hill which is maintained free of pesticides. They can wander down to Rideau Hall where the Governor General's extensive lawns and gardens are maintained with no health risks to her young daughter and the many visitors.

Using pesticides for ornamental use is like treating a cold with chemotherapy. It is a no-brainer. Why take this unnecessary risk with the health of our children?

Opposition Motion—PesticidesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by the member for Victoria, which was clear and concise.

In recent years, we have all witnessed an increased awareness of pesticide use. I remember 30 years ago, when my father used to spray herbicides on the apple trees and the lawn without taking any safety precautions. The quantities were approximate. He would have to go to bed for two days afterward. Since then, he has followed the directions and he is much better.

I would like to ask the member a question. The European Commission is recognized for taking fairly progressive environmental measures. In 2001, it re-evaluated 2,4-D and concluded that it was acceptable for use on lawns if it was applied as directed. In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency approved this product for the same uses.

What does my colleague think of these two conclusions, one from a progressive body and the other from our neighbour, both of which consider that this product is appropriate for use?