Bill C-53 (Historical)

Pest Control Products Act

An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests

Pest Control Products Act

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me these eight minutes to address the issue of pesticides.

As I said earlier, this issue is very important to us. I am very pleased that we are revisiting the legislation through Bill C-53. It gives us the opportunity to better protect not only our environment but also, as I mentioned, the health of our children and pets, because pesticides are often used on lawns.

As this issue affects several jurisdictions, we need to find a way to work in co-operation with the various levels of government.

Earlier, I mentioned Hudson, the first municipality to make an important environmental decision to ban the use of pesticides.

I also mentioned that, in a riding like mine, if there is one priority that municipalities must have, it is to protect lake waters. It goes without saying that lakeside residents, those who live around lakes, love to have a beautiful lawn. They often use pesticides that can be extremely dangerous, not only for the water in our lakes, but also for the health of bathers and fishers who eat the fish that lives in these lakes.

So, if we pollute the environment with pesticides, we also pollute lakes, fish and ourselves, because we eat the fish. We must take this into consideration. We must have bylaws that protect the land around lakes. This is the case in several municipalities.

I have the good fortune of living on the shores of a lake where the municipality passed a bylaw banning the use of chemicals, not just pesticides, but also fertilizers, so as to protect the quality of our lake water. Very stiff fines are levied if people do not comply. This is one way to ensure that regulations and bylaws are well respected.

It was worrisome to see how the registration of pesticides was done here on the Hill by the agency responsible. An incredible number of pesticides have been registered in recent years. In this regard, we must be careful, because when a pesticide is registered, its impact is not always measurable in the short term, but often only in the mid term or the long term, with the result that we often realize after the fact that a product that was registered is in fact very harmful to health, or even to the environment.

So, we must be very careful when registering products. I think we should also invest in research to find products that will be less harmful to the environment and to health.

I know people who work in this area and they are increasingly looking at natural sources, at environmentally friendly products. Let me give an example. Some environmentally friendly products are now sold on the market to treat plants and rose bushes. These products are much less harmful to health. I have personally used them.

We can go to a garden centre and ask for these ecological products. Unless we do, nothing will happen. I think that there will have to be a new vision in the future with respect to pest control products. We have relied on them too much and now we must think of our children's future and go back to much more ecological products.

I will give another example. Just a few short years ago, in regions such as mine, I remember that it was very popular for golf courses to have absolutely perfect greens, and that is understandable. In fact, at one point, this was all the rage in the Laurentides, where people went for lawn care packages involving four or five treatments with just as many pesticides as fertilizers.

I recall vividly how, when these companies came to treat your lawn, they left little signs with the following warning “Keep pets and children off the grass for the next 24 hours”. If they leave a warning like this and instruct people not to use the lawn, there is some sort of risk.

I myself remember that my children had rashes after the lawn was treated, because the products used were very strong and could cause nausea or even rashes. One cannot keep children from playing on the lawn.

I mention all of this to make the point that it is high time that this legislation be reviewed. However, we said that we agreed with the bill, but that we would not support the amendments. Those listening already know why. My colleagues have spoken at length about this and I do not think that it is up to the Senate to make decisions. It is the job of those who have been legitimately elected to this chamber to make decisions, and to do so in consultation with the public. We are here to represent the public.

We must also take into consideration the fact that the production of pesticides is a big industry. There will be a lot of lobbying. We will have to stand fast and stand together to make sure this lobbying will not have an impact on our decisions on health and environmental issues.

A short while ago, Quebec was mentioned. Personally, I would really like us to work together and harmonize all regulations. Quebec has made regulations and passed laws in this area. There are also regulations or laws at the federal level and bylaws in many municipalities. I hope that municipalities in the regions, which have lakes, rivers and other important environmental assets, will eventually have similar regulations to really protect our environment in a consistent manner. We will have to work in harmony.

We see more and more products on which the public wants information. Somebody talked about GMOs earlier. People want to know what they are eating. More and more, they want to know about the mid term and long term impact of the products they buy. With a review of the legislation and Bill C-53, we will be able to deal with this in a practical manner.

Government members can count on our support for this bill, but we will vote against the amendments.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Friday mornings are often full of nice surprises and I do consider it a nice surprise to be able to speak today to a bill that deals mostly with public health.

I worked directly with sick children for many years, so everything that has to do with the health of children is a priority of mine, even more so since I have become a grandmother.

I would like to make a comparison to explain the significance of this bill. I do not think it has been done yet in the House, so it should be very worthwhile.

Antibiotics were developed in the 1950s. They were considered a great thing because they were healing patients. Very serious studies had been carried out. In the end, they concluded that the benefits outweighed the side effects.

I would like to tell the House about two types of antibiotics that were widely used at the time. The first one was called chloromycetin. Park & Davis shareholders made a lot of money on this drug until a lengthy study showed that it had catastrophic side effects on blood cells, namely the red blood cells which carry oxygen, the white blood cells which are our body's defence system, and the platelets which prevent us from bleeding to death when we hurt ourselves.

Chloromycetin lost all its virtues, since its side effects far outweighed any benefit it could provide.

The second antibiotic I want to talk about also had serious side effects. it was called gentamicin and was prescribed to patients with cystic fibrosis. Everyone has heard of cystic fibrosis. Everyone knows that Celine Dion lost a niece to cystic fibrosis. This wonderful antibiotic had irreversible side effects on the auditory nerve. So, people lived a little longer, but went deaf. These are just two examples.

One of my colleagues was talking about DDT recently. I remember seeing cans of this product in my house, in my little village of Vaudreuil. It was fantastic, extraordinary. However, we have since discovered that DDT had terrible effects on the environment and on people's health.

In any bill dealing with health, there is a very important principle known as the precautionary principle. We are now using pesticides for several reasons. In the last 10 to 15 years, the most obvious one for all city dwellers is to have a beautiful lawn. Everybody wants to have a beautiful lawn that looks just like the green carpet here in the House, although it does have a few spots. A green carpet is quite nice. But a few spots on the lawn will not kill anybody. It is essentially a question of appearance.

I find it quite ridiculous to threaten people's health for cosmetic reasons only. This makes no sense at all in terms of what is really important in life.

However, when we talk about pesticides in agriculture, we know that we all have to eat and that we all want to eat healthy products that are not dangerous to our health. I feel it is important that the pesticides used to ensure good quality products be as harmless as possible.

We therefore need quality products, products that have been carefully evaluated and that are still regularly evaluated, even once they have been recognized as safe enough.

I really wonder about what the government is up to with its amendment to re-examine the entire legislative process, which is the normal thing to do, but give that role to the Senate.

It is true that since our senators are appointed for life, or rather until they reach 75 years of age, some will probably recall certain pesticides they knew when they were young. They said “Obviously, they are no good”. There may certainly be an element of truth in this, but I personally do not think that it is a good reason.

Each time we talk about fundamental issues like public health, I always think that this is a responsibility that belongs to duly elected parliamentarians. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vigorously oppose the Liberal government's amendment.

The second amendment is also quite disquieting. I do not have to remind those who are listening today that, for a few weeks now, there has been a momentum in favour of transparency all over the country. I think it goes against the required transparency to say that some documents will remain confidential to protect the competitiveness of businesses.

We know very well that competitiveness, if it is necessary, can also be the source of extremely serious abuses. People can deliberately hide things they know are tremendously harmful just to continue raking in the profits. We have seen some recent examples of this.

When I was very young, people smoked and it was not dangerous; it was sort of trendy, fashionable and everybody did it. Now, as we know, the situation is quite different. U.S. companies, and maybe even some Canadian companies, have been sued for having caused cancer.

So, if we are not careful about the whole pesticide issue, if we do not invest more in research to find natural agents to control pests and parasites, one day we will have to deal with major health problems, there will be lawsuits and, in the end, the public will pay for the government's bad decisions.

Bill C-53 which is now before us is good legislation. It is not perfect, but, thank God, I am a Quebecer and happy to be one because Quebec has, in this area as in many others, legislation which is slightly ahead of Canadian legislation. Therefore, the gaps we see in Bill C-53 will be filled in a responsible and intelligent manner by the Quebec legislation, which meets the public's expectations.

It is no accident that a small suburban community west of Montreal was the first to ban lawn care products. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever been to Hudson, but there you will find fine homes on beautifully landscaped lots. In this small community, they have perhaps understood that health is far more important than a manicured lawn and that weeds are not really all that ugly. After all, they are a life form.

Thus Hudson did a service to Quebec and Quebecers and I think this community also helped open the eyes of the rest of Canada since, as my colleague said and everyone knows, the supreme court confirmed that Quebec municipalities were entitled to regulate the use of pesticides within their boundaries.

In conclusion I would like to make the connection with the famous GMOs, genetically modified organisms. There was a lot of talk about these products, but we have not talked about them for some time now.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.

It was time for the legislation regulating the use of pesticides to be modernized. It has been talked about for years. For years, there have been proposals on the table.

For years, many scientists have been warning the public that using pesticides is not a trivial matter and that pesticides are products which carry a health risk.

More and more studies are showing the long term impact of pesticides on human health. There is particular emphasis on the effects of pesticide induced illnesses among young children, who have more contact with pesticides because they tumble around on the lawn and often play outside, in close contact with the elements of nature, which may contain vapour from pesticides, insecticides or herbicides.

More and more epidemiological studies are showing beyond any doubt that, in the medium and long term, pesticides can definitely have an impact on human health, not just in a sporadic way, such as dizziness or vomiting, but that they can even actually cause cancer.

The use of pesticides has become routine and their danger played down to the public over the years, often by the companies which sell these products. The practice of using pesticides is not a trivial matter. In Quebec alone, 8,200 tonnes of pesticides were spread in 1997. Even in the ornamental horticulture sector, there has been a 60% increase since 1992 in the use of pesticides by ordinary citizens, who often lack information about the dangers of using these products.

As I mentioned earlier, there has been a greater attempt at raising awareness in the past few years coming not from governments but from scientists—particularly in American publications—who are warning the public about the dangers of using pesticides, particularly for improving the appearance of lawns, a popular practice since the mid-1970's.

As the old saying goes, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. We always want to have the greenest lawn in the neighbourhood. It is a matter of pride in our modern life. We want to be able to say our lawn is greener than the Jones' and that it is free of weeds and dandelions.

Attitudes are changing, though, and so much so that the federal government wants to modernize the Pest Control Act by implementing several recommendations of the committee, and that the Quebec government has also introduced a bill and done some promotion and education to help the public understand the risks of using pesticides.

In the last several years, municipalities have regulated the use of pesticides within their jurisdictions. But that kind of regulation is a brutal attack against the markets of big corporations that not only produce pesticides but also spread them on the lawns for consumers.

ChemLawn and Spray Tech have challenged before the supreme court the right of the municipalities to make regulations on the use of pesticides, and they lost. It is a huge victory because these companies which are backed by the manufacturers of pesticides like Monsanto and CIL all too often control the information and the market. This is happening not just here, but also internationally.

The situation is so serious that a major debate has been going on for some 15 years regarding the fact that these companies control not only the pesticides, insecticides or herbicides that are used for agriculture, which accounts for 80% of their use, or for cosmetic purposes, but also control related seeds. Through cross-breeding and genetic manipulations of the seeds, they have managed to ensure that these seeds cannot reproduce themselves. Therefore, it is not possible to keep some of the seeds harvested at the end of the crop year to start the following crop year. These seeds and the plants they produce are also subject to very strict requirements regarding the use of pesticides and pest control in general. The result is that, first, farmers no longer have control over their production and their future. This is happening here.

Second, they are forced to buy from these companies, which have an upstream and downstream monopoly on agricultural production and sales.

Third, these companies are often transnationals, such as CIL and Monsanto, and they take advantage of their presence all over the world to organize the market, depending on local regulations.

This has happened in the past. It happened with DDT, a pesticide that was used massively by farmers in Quebec and in Canada. The product was banned here after being banned in the United States, because it was proven to be a strong cancer causing agent. Several years after it had been banned in the United States and Canada, this product was still being used in South America. South American farmers were once again being exploited by the large companies that were producing DDT. They were not warned of the dangers related to DDT, a product that had been banned for a number of years already in Canada and in the United States.

It is high time that these corporations, which not only control pesticides, but the very future of agriculture in Quebec and in Canada, and even throughout the world, were brought into line. It is time to break their monopoly on the future of humanity. When one has such perfect control over food production, one also indirectly has perfect control over the survival of the human race.

This being said, we deplore the fact that, with the two amendments that were presented, the government only did 80% of the work. It could have improved its legislation and made us 100% happy.

First, when we talk about the legislation review process by the Senate, there is something wrong there. The Senate is asked to continue legislative measures or to stop them, while it is for the House of Commons, comprised of elected members who vote, to do its job as lawmaker. It is not legitimate to ask a non elected chamber to decide on the continuing or not of a public policy bill like this one, when it was passed by elected members.

Second, we would have liked that one of the main recommendations of the committee be included in the bill, that is promoting alternative products to chemical pesticides. There are organic pesticides everywhere. We can blame Canada, as was the case in the 1980s when I was an economist at the Union des producteurs agricoles, for its slow approach in registering pesticides, compared to what is happening in the United States. It is totally different there. The process is very slow here, while American producers now have access to alternative pesticides that are not harmful to the environment. They have a competitive edge over our producers. We should model the registration process and the related resources on the United States. This is what needs to be done here.

Third, we deplore the second amendment proposed by the government on the confidentiality of business data. The government could have ignored this type of consideration, especially since there is a problem with public information about the danger of pesticides when the companies are asked to conduct analyses on the possible effects of their products on health, and these analyses are kept confidential and the public cannot have access to them.

We will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill, but we would have liked the government to do 100% and not 80% of its job.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before being elected to represent the constituents of Surrey Central, I was in the business of pest control and the marketing of pesticides. I do have some experience dealing with pesticides and I hold a degree in agriculture.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development when it studied pesticides, we tabled a minority report on behalf of the official opposition.

With this background I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests. In the report stage, only Motion No. 1 and No 7 are up for debate and vote. The others were ruled out of order. Motion No. 1 reverses the PC amendment and is merely changing an “and” to “or”. It likely makes no difference either way. Motion No. 7 reverses a broadly supported subamendment at that committee which adds the “Senate or both Houses of parliament” instead of a committee of the House of Commons only to conduct a mandatory review.

Those are very straightforward amendments so I will not make much fuss about them. However the legislation intends to control the import, manufacture, sale and use of all pesticides in Canada.

All stakeholders recognize that there is room for improving the transparency, efficiency and accountability in our pesticides management system. The official opposition advocates promoting a balanced approach toward dealing with the issues relating to the management and regulation of pest control products, and to offer recommendations on how the Pest Management Regulatory Agency can improve on fulfilling its mandate to protect human health and the environment.

Regrettably, the government lacks balance and does very little to promote partnership and understanding between stakeholders, farmers and property owners. It fails to recognize the tremendous efforts and successes achieved by manufacturers and users of pest control products to make those products as safe to human health and the environment as they are effective in controlling pests and protecting crops.

In the May 1999 report, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development dealt with a number of issues relating to identifying, managing, and reducing pesticide risks. The environment commissioner's criticisms of the PMRA included concern over inefficiencies in its regulatory operations, timeline delays within re-evaluation activities, a lack of information sharing and lack of co-operation with industry.

Unlike legislation in other jurisdictions, as part of the approval process the bill requires manufacturers to show that their chemicals are effective. This adds unnecessary cost and time to review the process. New product registrations should not be delayed. The PMRA should only be concerned with safety and the market will decide if a pesticide is efficient or not.

The responsibility for risk management must be shared between the PMRA and industry and they should agree on the principles and ground rules guiding risk management. The stakeholders are eager to work with government to ensure the improvements in risk management practices and processes are implemented in Canada.

The efficiency of the PMRA's registration operations has a direct impact on Canada's ability to remain competitive internationally. Such a transparent process would go a long way toward enhancing public confidence and accountability in the regulatory system.

We asked the government to amend the bill to include specific approval procedures for minor use chemicals. We asked the government to align Canada's risk management practices with those of our trading partners and through Canada's membership in organizations such as the OECD.

The environment commissioner expressed serious concern over the credibility gap that exists between talk and action in the federal government's environmental agenda. The lack of co-operation in federal interdepartmental information sharing is a systemic and chronic problem that has persisted under this Liberal government.

The re-evaluation of scientific evidence should not result in a duplication of the work conducted by other OECD countries. Opportunities to accept OECD decisions or to co-ordinate re-evaluation activity among other industrialized countries with regulatory systems similar to that of the Canadian systems should be fully utilized.

Given that 50% of Canada's agricultural production is exported to the United States, priority efforts must be made to align re-evaluation activities with those of the United States.

The PMRA should step up work with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to harmonize data requirements with NAFTA partners and those of other OECD countries.

The official opposition believes that a clear understanding of environmental regulations and research responsibilities between federal and provincial governments and the private sector must be achieved.

The new act authorizes the exchange of confidential business information, including trade secrets, and creates the potential for intrusion into the area of intellectual property rights, or a violation of fundamental individual and corporate freedoms. A more thorough investigation of these issues is necessary.

There are also fears that aircraft dusting pesticides may potentially be used by terrorists. Canadians need assurances regarding security and safety.

Bill C-53 ignores addressing the problems faced by Canadian farmers. For instance, pesticides banned in Canada are not banned in many other countries around the world, including the United States of America. However agricultural produce, fruits and vegetables, from these countries continue to be imported for consumption by Canadians. Not only does this pose a risk to Canadians but such produce is cheaper to produce since the banned chemicals are usually cheaper in price. Canadian farmers, on the other hand, have to use chemicals that are expensive and therefore are at a competitive disadvantage.

The use of pesticides in non-agricultural settings has also become a subject of controversy. The government has done very little to further the understanding of the need for pesticides in urban environments and to recognize the importance and role of the products in non-agricultural sectors in controlling weeds, insects, fungal and other diseases. Pesticides are important to allergy sufferers in minimizing the risk of related disease or damage associated with weeds, pollens or moulds. Pest control products are one tool to create healthy environments and increase the aesthetic value of land.

The official opposition is supportive of developing and using proven alternatives in urban environments. Everyone agrees that the health of Canadians should be paramount. Increased efforts to protect the health of children and pregnant women are to be commended.

A moratorium on pest control products should not be put in place until there is a substantial amount of conclusive scientific evidence that unequivocally links such products to human disease or ill health.

The official opposition also believes that proven sound science, domestically and internationally, should continue to be the cornerstone for the development of a public policy that is balanced and reasoned.

The official opposition encourages a national pest management education program with the industry that will further the knowledge of Canadians surrounding pest management challenges and the tools to deal with them. The Canadian Alliance believes that the single agency model of the PMRA provides for greater accountability and efficiency in pesticide regulations.

The Canadian Alliance supports the general intent of the bill but believes that the amendments I have mentioned should be made to reflect changes within the industry.

The official opposition advocates promoting a balanced approach toward dealing with issues relating to the management and regulation of pest control products.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not usually comment on the content of question period. We all have our own views of how good or bad they were. I will instead refer to the government's legislative program.

This afternoon and this evening we will consider the business of supply with the opposed motions and so on. That takes place as it does normally, with the later completion of the appropriations bill.

Tomorrow we will do the following business. I would like to first call Bill C-53, the pest control bill, at report stage. Once that is completed we will then call Bill C-55, the public safety legislation. I believe those two bills should complete the day tomorrow.

Next Monday it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-5 and third reading of Bill C-5 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday of next week and/or after the completion of Bill C-5, I would then call Bill S-41 respecting legislative language. We will consider at that point an address to Her Majesty concerning the jubilee.

Once that is completed, and in the event the House wants to continue with other business, the bills I would call next Tuesday, subject of course to consultation between House leaders, would probably be the following: Bill C-19, the environmental protection legislation; Bill C-48, the copyright bill; and possibly Bill C-54, the sports bill which I understand should be out of committee sometime within the next short while.

That is the business I propose to call after we complete the address to Her Majesty that I described.

I also intend to consult with opposition House leaders to see if it is still their wish to hold the take note debate next Wednesday on the future of Canada's health care system.

Pest Control Products Act

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to Bill C-53, and I am happy to be able to do so briefly today.

In any event, I believe that I will have the opportunity to come back to it and to express my opinion on the bill now before the House. I will probably have the opportunity to express my opinion and talk about my experience to those who are listening to us.

What I wanted to talk about today is my personal experience with pesticides, as I was the mayor of a municipality for a long time. I wanted to indicate what I have accomplished. That would have given the people who are listening today an actual example of this. I will, however, have the opportunity to come back to this.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of this legislation. I thank all hon. members who sat on the health committee with me for their work in making changes to this bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health for recognizing that members in the House saw that the bill needed some changes. The minister was very good to work with us in putting forward recommendations.

I would like to remind all hon. members that five amendments came from opposition members and were accepted by the government. They include the preamble, which encourages alternative approaches, and the mandate of informing the public, which we wanted to ensure was increased. We also accepted reviews from other OECD countries and the cancellation of the consultation on the policy codes of practice; and for greater certainty the protection for children that it extended to future generations.

Government members put forward amendments dealing with the definition of acceptable risk; the definition of formulas; expediting the evaluation of reduced risk pesticides; and the recognition of the importance of dealing with minor use pesticides and dealing with them expeditiously.

This committee work has showed that members of parliament working together can put forward amendments and put forward a bill representing the interests of all Canadians across this country, whether members of an environmental group or farmers. That is what this bill does.

The bill would aggressively modernize the Canadian pest management legislation. It would safeguard Canadians and the environment while ensuring that our nation's farmers would have access to safe pesticides which would ensure an abundant food supply and allow them to compete with other farmers around the world.

Bill C-53 furthers three important goals designed to benefit all Canadians and it respects what Canadians have been telling the government.

First, the Pest Control Products Act would strengthen protection for Canadians and their environment. This act would specifically protect segments of the population who are most vulnerable to health risks created by pesticides such as infants, seniors and pregnant women. It would also require the Minister of Health to consider a margin of safety, an increase of tenfold, when evaluating products designed to be used in and around homes and schools.

This bill would also place an extra premium on human health by requiring the Minister of Health to account for the cumulative effects of pesticide use and its exposure. This measure would ensure the protection of Canadians from all possible negative consequences of pesticide exposure and use.

Second, the act would strengthen the post-registration control of pesticides. Under Bill C-53, pesticide producers would be required to report any adverse health or environmental impact created by their products. The act would also require that older pesticides be re-evaluated 15 years after they were first registered. This re-evaluation process would ensure that we would continue to use the latest scientific information and data when determining which pesticide products remain on the market. It would also give the Minister of Health authority to remove products from the market when the producer or the pest management product fails to supply re-evaluation data.

The bill would also dramatically increases maximum fines for the most serious violations. Violations may be punished by up to $1 million in fines and I believe these penalties should deter people from using unregistered pest management products or registered products used in an unlawful manner.

Finally, the bill would make the registration process of pesticides more transparent. It would also encourages public verification of the work of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This is something for which all groups have been asking. The bill would ensure that we could watch over the work being done at the PMRA. It would also establish public registries that would contain detailed evaluation reports of registered pesticides and reading rooms where people could go in and look specifically at the data the PMRA uses to make its decisions.

This increased transparency will build public confidence and will provide Canadians with the knowledge that we have some of the safest food in the world and that we have agencies to ensure that that continues to be the case.

While the health committee recognized that the pest control products had potentially adverse human health effects, it also recognized that pesticides contributed greatly to the quality of life and the strength of the Canadian economy.

Bill C-53 and the regulations would provide Canadian farmers with better access to safe pest management products being registered in other developing and developed countries such as the United States, Great Britain and the OECD countries. Canadian farmers can compete head to head with the Americans but they need the same products to do so. The act and the regulations following it would allow Canadian farmers access to these products and allow them to do it in a safe and timely manner.

Directive 2002-02 of the PMRA extends the NAFTA joint review programs for reduced risk pesticides to submissions made solely to the PMRA. By adopting this reduced risk criteria used by the USEPA, the directive harmonizes and moves toward harmonization of the registration process between our two countries and will encourage more pesticide use within Canada and safer at reduced risk.

I want to conclude by saying that members of parliament were allowed to listen directly to their constituents and put forward their concerns. On my part that would be the farmers in my community and across the country. The government allowed us to make sure that those concerns were put on the table and to make the changes needed to ensure that all Canadians, whether an environmentalist or a farmer, had a voice in this debate.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know the bill updates legislation that was approved over 30 years ago. Since 1990 actually, there have been several recommendations on how to update it. For instance, there were the so-called blue book, the purple book as well, and the 1999 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. They all formulated ideas and recommendations to improve the Pest Control Products Act, which we are now amending with the bill. All these efforts have been useful over time in producing the bill that is before us for discussion and in strengthening the old legislation.

I would like at this point in the debate to commend the chair of the health committee for not rushing through the bill, but for having listened to a wide range of witnesses and for adopting, with the help of committee members, a good number of amendments which definitely will strengthen the legislation.

It is a great pleasure for the members of the environment committee who worked on the committee's report entitled “Pesticides. Making the Right Choice for Human Health and the Environment”, which as we know was published about two years ago, to see the following amendments being passed by the health committee.

First, there is the fact that the words “acceptable risk” are clearly defined. Second is the inclusion, even if in a narrow scope and manner, of the very important precautionary principle, in clause 20, I believe.

Third is the fact that formulants are now included in the definition of a pesticide. It is a very important step and a breakthrough in committee. Fourth, the aggregate exposure and cumulative effect now have to be considered in the assessment of risk and in the re-evaluation and special reviews.

Fifth, there is a parliamentary review every seven years from now on. We also suggested a shorter period, nevertheless it is still good stuff. Sixth, the annual status report will also include registrations and lower risk products.

Seventh, the protection of children by way of a definition in committee is extended also to future generations, a general principle of capital importance. Eighth, the review of lower risk products will be expedited. Ninth, there is now stronger language favouring alternative products and also favouring strategies as defined in the preamble.

These are definitely positive improvements.

There are still some shortcomings. First, for instance, there is no statutory mandate given to the pest management review agency, which we very warmly recommended.

Second, there is no inclusion of the substitution principle, therefore there will be no requirement to deregister older products as newer and safer ones come on the market. Third, there is a broad definition of what constitutes confidential business information. It remains as it is in the old legislation.

Fourth, there is no requirement for a sales database, but I hope this will be resolved by additional funding for the chief statistician. Fifth, there is no requirement to label toxic formulants, contaminants or microcontaminants.

Finally, there is no phasing out of cosmetic pesticides, a measure that was proposed by our colleague from Montreal West, I believe, in her private member's bill, which actually was unanimously accepted by the House some months ago. It is another shortcoming of Bill C-53 that the cosmetic use of pesticides is not included, but one draws comfort from the fact that the supreme court last June set a precedent by saying that yes, the municipalities do have the power to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides, and yes, the public interest can and should be served by municipalities. Therefore the legislation somehow opens up or definitely makes room for the municipalities to take the initiatives.

It is very heartening to see that municipal elected representatives have not been bamboozled by the pesticide industry's public relations campaign every spring and that today over 30 municipalities across Canada have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property and in some cases also on public property. It is also heartening to know that here on Parliament Hill pesticides are not used on the lawns.

In this connection also one has to say that the pesticide industry, in an attempt to introduce its products to the market, uses abbreviations and names which remove entirely the notion that what is being offered is actually a pesticide. We have fancy names like 2,4-D, which is a fancy abbreviation to convince the potential consumer that it is not a chemical that has danger for children and pets on the lawn and that it can be used safely. The fact is that every form of pesticide, whether it is described as mild or not, is a killer. If it kills insects, it contains substances that in certain accumulations and with a certain intensity can be very dangerous to human health, particularly to infants, to living beings of a smaller size and to adults in certain instances.

Therefore one can ask the question: What is wrong in having on the front lawn some beautiful, nice, yellow dandelions beautifying the landscape? There is evidently a cultural fixation here, particularly in suburban Canada, that the lawn has to be perfect and that it cannot contain anything but the blade. I hope there now will be a changing culture over time whereby we will see yellow flowers on front or backyard lawns and people will not consider them to be bad, considering that they are also part of the natural habitat and so on.

To conclude, the bill tells the manufacturers of pesticides that the government does recognize the fact that pesticides, which are euphemistically called pest control products, are actually dangerous substances and they should be used rarely and with extreme care. Particular care ought to be given to the training of the people using them, particularly in agriculture through the WHMIS program. It is good to know that in the bill there is a clause containing a measure that was firmly and in a very eloquent manner proposed by the member for Ottawa West when we had the hearings in committee when writing the report on pesticides a couple of years ago.

We hope that the industry will not spend money on promoting through advertising ideas that attempt to convince the public of the innocuousness of their products. I think that Canadians are now better informed than ever before.

Finally, let me say that the bill does have great potential. It is most definitely badly needed as an improvement over the 1969 legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, absolutely. It is proven by fact. However we have no credibility to tell the United States to clean up its environment and stop the pollution that is killing Canadians when we have a far worse record.

Despite the problem, Windsor city council with the support of citizens has taken action and shown leadership that relates to Bill C-53 and pesticide use. Whereas Bill C-53 is vague and provides limited direction, the city of Windsor has shown responsible government through comprehensive community input and the ability to take action. That is the real failing of Bill C-53.

When looking at our reliance on pesticides and their negative impacts on health and the environment one must wonder why it took so long for the government to update the Pest Control Products Act. It was passed in 1969. Ironically, I was born in 1968 so I have lived all my life under this bill, a bill with a real connection to our health and welfare. It has taken this long to update it. I am concerned it may take 20 or 30 years to do another update even though we are talking about potentially 7 years.

One of the reasons I have reservations about the bill is that approximately 140 amendments were put forward at committee stage to address its problems. With two minor exceptions they were all defeated. Ironically, this defeats some of the committee work we have heard about from my hon. colleague today. It undermines the parliamentary system.

The defeated amendments were tabled in response to the input of witnesses regarding: the precautionary principle; pollution prevention, which is important because preventive measures can save money, health, and more importantly, lives; use and risk reduction; cosmetic ban; labelling; and independent science based research. These have all been abandoned. It is a sad commentary on a government which is bowing to industry as opposed to its citizens.

To say that those issues cannot be entrenched in the bill really bugs me. The city of Windsor's plan and government which take action demonstrate that political will and public consultation is meaningful and can have results. The city of Windsor introduced a best management practices committee for pesticide reduction. The action plan is an aggressive reduction of pesticide use for cosmetic and non-essential purposes with the goal of eventual elimination.

There has been the immediate elimination of the use of pesticides. A committee has been struck to report on an annual basis. This is really interesting because the report from the federal government will go back seven years, yet a municipality can report back in one year. We know what the federal government has done to municipalities over the last several years, having put them under the thumb of downloading and cutting resources and giving them no guidance.

Also important is the ongoing involvement of the private sector, public sector, labour, landscapers, gardeners, horticulturists, and commercial care specialists. That demonstrates there is an important role that all these partners can play. It is made easier by having books and educational material available so the public can make educated decisions. The failure of the bill is it does not provide an opportunity to make sure that the public is well informed to make conscious decisions and more important, move toward the solutions that they seek.

Our main concerns with regard to pesticides are simple. Pesticides are designed to kill and are deliberately introduced to our environment and then into our food. That in itself should be reason enough to have at least the five years that was requested, not the seven years for examining the bill. Only about one per cent of pesticides actually reach their intended targets. The rest is released into the environment which affects humans and wildlife. We know the connection with our environment and our health care.

In Windsor West in particular with our high rates, it is very important that this is addressed because if these things are not tied together we will see continual degradation. With the seven year lapse in reviewing it, if harmful things are found, we will be bogged down in very comprehensive ways in trying to make improvements or to ban substances that are very important to act on. In the past it has taken far too long to address the use of DDT and other like substances in public areas.

In addition, many pesticides do not break down. They accumulate in living organisms and affect the reproductive and immune systems of humans and animals. Once again Windsor and Essex county has the highest rates of birth defects in that area according to the Gilbertson and Brophy report. If we do not address the pesticide use in our community, we will see that continually entrenched in our environment.

That is why we cannot support the bill as it is. The amendments that were talked about, especially the 52 that were proposed by the New Democratic Party, were very important to address.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence as well as that of everyone here today. It is a privilege and an honour to speak today to report stage of Bill C-53 and the amendments to this important bill. Many parliamentarians have worked to update the bill but my fear is that without the input and amendments that were defeated at committee all the work will be for nought.

Although I have had the opportunity to ask questions in the House this is my first opportunity to recognize the results of the May byelection. As New Democrats we were successful in obtaining the seat of Windsor West, and I feel compelled to recognize the support and confidence that was placed in me. I would appreciate the indulgence of the House in this.

As members know, Bill C-53 is the Pest Control Products Act. The amendments related to the campaign in which we said the environment and health care played a significant role in our community.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of all my supporters during the campaign. My heartfelt thanks go out to them for the work they did on a day to day basis. My family, my wife Terry Chow, as well as my father, mother, sister and brother have helped on all my campaigns in the past. I appreciate their ongoing support during this transition period.

Others who have assisted me are my extended family, relatives, and friends in general. I was fortunate enough to have the support of volunteers from Windsor West and abroad, which is important for our community. I got a chance to learn about other communities and they got a chance to learn about Windsor West and the issues we face.

I also acknowledge the labour movement of the city of Windsor. Its leadership, members and retirees all played an important role in the election. They have also had an influence on environmental policies which relate to Bill C-53.

I had a difficult time even considering running in the byelection. Prior to seeking elected office in the House of Commons I represented ward two in the west part of the city of Windsor where I was elected in 1997 and returned in 2000. I was also a youth co-ordinator at the multicultural council where I helped youth at risk who had lost their way find employment and return to school. I appreciated those experiences but the Liberal government's lack of action and political will and its inability to enact legislation that would mean real and substantive change compelled me to seek the seat of Windsor West.

It is this point which brings me to Bill C-53, the Pest Control Products Act. It is an example of the government's lack of political will because it is vacant of real substantive change.

In Windsor West and Essex County we are faced with some of the most deplorable rates of cancer, respiratory diseases and birth defects in the province and the country. A recent health study by James Brophy and Michael Gilbertson compared Windsor's rates of cancer and other diseases with those of 17 other areas in the great lakes region. The study found evidence of a connection between the environment and health.

The sad reality is that much of the degradation comes from pollution from the United States where we have limited control. This has been compounded by Canada's abysmal record on the environment. We have been seeing a funding freeze that makes Brian Mulroney an environmentalist compared to the current Prime Minister.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor today in this debate on Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and theenvironment by regulating products used for thecontrol of pests.

It was high time, to say the least, that the House debated such a bill. We should not forget that this bill will amend an existing statute that was enacted in 1969, some 33 years ago, to regulate pest control in Canada.

Ironically, many scientists have stated their views, a standing committee of the House has examined the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment, and many reports have demonstrated a direct impact on the health of children, infants and pregnant women, but the government has waited 33 years before introducing a bill to regulate the whole sector of pest control and pesticides.

It is all the more surprising since the environment commissioner has stated clearly enough her assessment of pesticides management in Canada. She said that more than 6,000 pesticides are available on the market, with 500 different active ingredients, and that the great majority of them have not been re-evaluated in Canada for many years. Some said they have not been re-evaluated since 1988.

These pesticides were still on the market for the public to buy, without any re-evaluation, and having been registered on the basis of 30 year old data, old analysis schemes, and old public health protection benchmarks. They are available on the market, but we do not necessarily know the impact they can have on the health of Quebecers and Canadians, and on the environment.

We said from the outset that we felt Bill C-53 was a step in the right direction to make this necessary reassessment of pesticides that are currently available on the market. At the time, we also indicated that this review of the existing legislation, through Bill C-53, should allow us to set up a process in keeping with the clearly stated criteria that were the object of a consensus a few years ago within the Standing Committee on the Environment. These criteria were based on the development of alternatives in the fight against pest in Canada.

This review of the bill was going to allow us to ensure that new means and tools would be put in place to control pest while protecting the environment.

It was under these circumstances that we proposed amendments in committee. Earlier, my colleagues from the NDP and the Conservative Party spoke eloquently about the strength of the Liberal majority, which fundamentally rejected the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

It is the same thing. My colleagues from the Bloc are correcting me, and I thank them for that. I was saying that the Liberal members of the committee get on any bandwagon, knowing that their work and their decisions will amount to nothing anyway. It is not only the opposition that was taken in; so were our friends across the way. They accepted an amendment, and were slapped on the wrist for it. The government told them “Do not do that. You have no right. We do not agree with that”. They apologized and promised to correct their mistake in the House. They will all vote in favour of Motion No. 7, despite the fact that all committee members approved the amendment. This is not serious. It is terrible.

People complain about the rigour of the committees. The Liberals, especially those in the back, close to the curtains, are saying that the members must have a role to play in committee. When they play their role, they get slapped on the wrist. Then, they say “We made a mistake. We did not think that this would make such an impact”. Perhaps they should read more about history.

That being said, let us talk about the second motion that was approved. It changes an amendment which we proposed. It is scandalous. Is it the lobby of big business that put their backs to the wall in only a matter of days?

What was said is very simple. There were two elements, clauses 43(4) and 43(5), which were to apply together as far as protection of confidential information is concerned. Clause 43(5) refers to components and then adds “of health or environmental concern”, and we are not doing anything to that. What is this bill about? Is it for businesses or individuals? All we did was add an and. The government's reply was “No, we are going to put back the or”. This gives an out to companies that do not want to make public confidential information that might have an impact on the environment and on health.

I recall certain Liberals on the committee talking about the necessity of “looking after pregnant women and unborn babies. We must think about future generations”. I think that thought was given instead to “present and future businesses”. It was simple and we are very much disappointed.

They were taken in as far as the Senate and the joint committee were concerned. This proves their inability to connect with reality. Now they are changing and heading off to spend the summer at home, saying “We were wrong, we would have liked to give the House of Commons more power but we are not entitled to do so”.

Lawyers came before the committee, people who are experts on parliamentary procedure. We could have asked them the question but were told “No, it is fine. They are right and we agree.” This is very disappointing. It has taken 30 years to review this legislation.

One thing is clear. There are advertisements on the radio and on TV, or in the newspapers, there are campaigns. They say “What do you have against bugs?” A person goes into a store and ask the clerk “What do you have against bugs?” meaning “to use against bugs” and the answer is “Nothing”. “What do you have against dandelions?” “Nothing”.

This has two meanings, since it can also mean “What objection do you have to bugs?” It shows that people are already starting to be more careful about the use of chemicals. Some will say that there are advantages to use, that is true.

The issue of cosmetic use and the issue of the precautionary principle were both rejected. All they wanted to do was bring the law up to date, but we are still ten years behind what the public wants to see, and what it already knows, ten years behind what the municipalities and provinces are doing.

I have said it often before and I will repeat it: the Liberals only have one single vision, one single strategy, it is for the Liberal party. They have no vision, no strategy for the country. Look at the legislative program, it is paltry.

In committee, people work like dogs to try to get some good work done. Nothing, absolutely nothing happens. All they want is to save this government and this political party.

With all due respect, Liberal members are simply machines; machines that say yes or no. Why did the committee members not stand up to the minister, who wanted to undo what they had voted on in committee? Why would they not stand up to her?

I believe that the time has come to reform the committee system, the House and parliament. However, more importantly, it is time to change governments.

For many people, Bill C-53 may not be a big deal, but again, this is ample proof of all the work that can be done in committee and all the trust that can be built in committee. There is another bill, Bill C-56 on reproductive technologies, being considered in the health committee. We will try to begin the debate before the House recesses for the summer.

When I look at the work that I did on behalf of my party, there were arguments for and against. We have been trying to build trust between the different opposition parties, and also between all of the parties, including the government party. Amendments have already been passed, and we have principles that we would like to discuss and adopt, if possible, in order to speed up the process.

We know that clause by clause consideration is slow. It is very slow. We go about this in good faith. We wanted the labelling to be more complete, but we were defeated on this point. We forgive them. They have no vision, but they are forgiven for it.

However, when we are able to agree on an amendment, which is passed, we expect all of the committee members to defend this amendment, every one of them, from both sides of the House.

Unfortunately, once again, the relationship of trust that was established in committee disintegrated, and this does not bode well for the trust between the people of this country and the government for the next few years.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate at report stage of Bill C-53, an act dealing with pest control products.

At the outset let me say that I come to the debate with a great deal of disappointment and anger at the process. Once again the democratic process for this Chamber has been ignored and the hard work of elected members has been ignored.

We have before us today two amendments sponsored by the Minister of Health from the Government of Canada. To do what? To negate, to nullify, the effects of two amendments proposed to the government in good faith at the committee stage in order to improve the act. We are not just talking about two amendments that have now been wiped out by the arbitrary, unilateral actions of the government. We are talking about an entire process that has been held to ransom by a government that refuses to take any criticism or any constructive suggestions.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that in fact our committee, the health committee of parliament, worked long and hard to make Bill C-53 a better piece of legislation. We went into the process with good faith. We said at the outset that the bill represented a significant improvement from the old legislation, which dates back to 1969. We said that it was a good start and was clearly beginning to address the concerns of Canadians over the last number of years but that it fell short in a significant number of areas.

We committed ourselves to work hard at the committee to improve the bill, and so we did. The opposition members of parliament together sponsored over 150 amendments to the bill. The NDP alone initiated 56 substantive amendments dealing with serious flaws in the legislation.

Did we get anywhere? Was any of it considered seriously? No. A few token gestures were made, a couple of tiny amendments were made in response to our concerns, but by and large there was a complete wall of disapproval for anything the opposition proposed. Yet here was an opportunity for the government to actually listen to the voices of Canadians and listen to the concerns shared by political parties right across the scene. Once again the arrogance, the absolute arbitrary nature, of the government has ruled the day and here we are today with no amendments from the committee, except for two from the government to negate and nullify the work of our committee.

Let us look at those two amendments. Motion No. 1 is an amendment from the government to reverse a motion sponsored by the Progressive Conservatives at the committee stage which would in fact deal with the concern raised by many witnesses before our committee pertaining to confidential business information. We tried very hard in our committee, and the amendment from the Conservatives did just this, to ensure that industry would not use these provisions of the act to deny necessary information to consumers and to prevent individuals from taking the necessary precautions.

The original amendment actually attempted to narrow the definition of confidential business information to ensure that the public good was preserved over the needs of industry. What do we have today? An amendment from the government to negate that work.

Frankly, it is hard to know how this is even in order. I accept the judgment of the Chair, but what was the point of all the work of committee? If even the little steps we were able to take were negated and pushed aside, what is the point of us even being here? What did we spend all those hours of work doing if it was only to see the government decide it was worthless and our contributions were meaningless?

The second motion before us today, if we can believe it, in fact reverses an amendment at our committee that called for a process to ensure that the new pest controls act would be reviewed by the House of Commons as opposed to the original intent of the government to have it reviewed by either the House of Commons or the Senate or both.

We took the position, justifiably so, that this is a matter for the elected representatives of the country. The review of something as important as the pest control act should be brought to the House and we should have a chance to verify its effectiveness and to make necessary changes depending on the results.

What do we have here? An amendment that goes back to the original and says that the act will be reviewed by a committee of the House, of the Senate or both Houses. I cannot believe it. These are simple little steps we are taking to bring some sense to this place and the government vetoes them each and every time.

Just on that point, the government originally called for the act to be reviewed every 10 years. We expressed our concern about that provision to begin with because 10 years is an awful long period of time. We wondered why the government was not willing to have the legislation placed under the scrutiny of objective eyes in a timely way so that we could make the necessary changes.

Do we think the government could accept the idea of a five year review period? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. We got seven years. We made a little progress, did we not? We got a little compromise. In seven years from this day we will get a chance to review this legislation that impacts on the lives and health of Canadians. We are talking about pesticides. We are talking about products that are toxic. We are talking about products that cause harm to human health and well-being.

That is why the committee took this process so seriously. That is why we worked so hard to get changes. That is why we tried to get even something as simple as the precautionary principle entrenched in law, which has already been done. It was done when the legislation pertaining to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was dealt with. At that time, parliament saw the wisdom of including within the law an actual provision to ensure that in terms of the whole framework of the law the precautionary principle or the do no harm principle should be the guiding way.

We in the health committee could not get that for the bill. It is gone. The government basically said “no more precautionary principle”. It is as if they are dirty words and we cannot say them any more. Every time we tried to make an amendment at committee to entrench the precautionary principle in the bill, we were shut down. The government said no, we cannot do it, it is not allowed.

Then we come to the review of the reproductive technologies bill, which is another piece of legislation where one would expect to see precaution entrenched in the law. The committee actually recommended that the principle be in the law. What did the government do? It took it out.

When we try to find out why, there is no answer. We asked if direction has gone out from on high to all departments that thou shalt not use the words precautionary principle. It would seem so. It would seem that the government has caved in to the demands of industry, to the absolute dictates of the corporate sector, which wants an unfettered marketplace, which does not want to have to deal with restrictions in terms of sale of products, which does not want to have to put labels on its products, which does not want to report to anybody, which does not want a transparent process.

The government, rather than being the body, the institution, that safeguards public health, is in complicity with the industry in stopping every initiative that makes sense in terms of human health and safety. That is what we are talking about.

That is why we are so outraged with the process today. We worked so hard to make the bill better, to respect the wishes of Canadians and to ensure that the government is doing its job, which is to make sure that the health protection of Canadians is its first priority, not the profit margins of the industry, not the greed of the corporate sector, but the health and safety of Canadians, and to take every step to ensure that Canadians are protected at all costs and that nothing is allowed on to the market unless it is proven to be safe.

That is why the precautionary principle is so important. It says that thou shalt ensure that all products on the market are safe. It should not be up to the consumer to prove harm. That is the difference, that is why it is so important and that is why the actions of the government are so wrong. That is why we oppose these motions and why we will keep fighting to the last moment for an improved bill dealing with pest control products.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53 concerning pesticides.

At second reading stage, I spoke in support of the bill, but also suggested a number of improvements that should be included, including a re-evaluation, by 2006, of all pesticides registered before 1995. Unfortunately, Bill C-53, as it now stands, does not contain such a provision.

The Bloc Quebecois also proposed an amendment to prohibit for three years the registration or any new registration of pesticides used for cosmetic purposes.

Unfortunately, the government rejected it. I also raised concern about the lack of support for biological agriculture research. I always thought we should do everything in our power to end our dependency on pesticides and have a more biological and environmentally harmless agriculture.

All these suggestions came from the environment committee report entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”, to which I had contributed. Unfortunately, Bill C-53 includes none of these proposals, which is quite deplorable. Nevertheless, this bill is a step in the right direction, considering that the most recent legislation, the Pest Control Products Act, dated back to 1969.

At least the bill contains positive elements, and I would like to mention a few.

The bill provides for better health and environmental protection through special protection for the newborn and children.

It takes into consideration the overall exposure to pesticides, including exposure through food and water and exposure to pesticides used in the home and school.

The bill also takes into consideration the cumulative effects of pesticides which have the same mode of action.

It encourages the reduction of risks posed by pesticides. For example, only pesticides contributing significantly to pest control are registered, and the dose and frequency of use have to be the lowest possible.

The bill also favours registration of low risk products through comparative risk assessment.

The bill would make the registration process more transparent by making it public and allowing access to detailed assessment reports on registered pesticides.

Thus, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, will be allowed to share scientific data with provincial, territorial, and international regulatory agencies. It will make for a better international joint review process by giving Canadian producers equal access to new and more secure pesticides that will help them be more competitive on the market.

The bill would provide more stringent controls on pesticides after their registration by requiring from the producers a statement of the negative impact of pesticides on human health.

It would require a re-evaluation of older pesticides 15 years after their registration. The minister would have the power to ban pesticides if the required data was not provided.

The bill would also provide increased powers of inspection and higher maximum penalties of up to $1 million for the most serious offences, when pesticides are not marketed or used in accordance with the law.

The bill would allow public input in the regulation of pesticides through consultations held before important decisions are made concerning registration.

The public could also contribute to the regulation of pesticides through special reviews and re-evaluations. Under the 2002 PCPA, everybody can ask the minister for a special review of a pesticide.

Moreover, the public could have an input through the reconsideration of a registration decision.

Under the 2002 PCPA, anyone may file a notice of objection to an important registration decision. In addition, the review will be open to the public, which will have numerous opportunities to participate and will have access to most of the information received by the review panel.

A public registry will include information on registrations, re-evaluations and special reviews, including the PMRA's detailed evaluations of the risks and values of pesticides.

With respect to test data, the public may inspect the results of scientific tests submitted to justify registration applications.

I applaud all these measures, but we could go further still. We are at report stage and we still have an opportunity to put forward amendments to improve the bill.

Our goal today is to have Bill C-53 reflect the recommendations in the report of the standing committee on the environment, which I cited earlier, or the measures which Quebec is getting ready to take. I would like to mention a few of these.

Last March, Quebec created a focus group on the use of pesticides in urban areas, which has released a report proposing various measures. One of these measures is to increase research and development budgets for alternatives to pesticides in order to encourage all initiatives in this regard and to help make them accessible to the public.

The group also called on the government to implement a communication plan including—and I am still speaking about Quebec—a periodically repeated national campaign to inform the public about the risks of using pesticides and about managing the environment; and to develop information tools, brochures, and a website aimed at citizens who wish to buy pesticides or services requiring the use of pesticides, or who wish to use alternative methods.

The government of Quebec has already approved several of these measures. Right now, the national broadcasting service is televising warnings about the use of pesticides in an urban setting. A number of municipalities in Quebec are getting ready to introduce motions prohibiting the use of pesticides to improve the appearance of lawns within their jurisdiction.

These are tangible measures which this government should have taken in Bill C-53, but it did not go far enough. It stopped short. One might think it had made commitments to pesticide manufacturers.

Why does the government not join Quebec? Why does it not provide funding to Quebec to lead an even more effective campaign so we can stop the use of pesticides in urban areas?

These are positive measures that can be taken, and I find it unfortunate that the federal government does not go that far in Bill C-53. There are alternatives to pesticides, but the government has to promote them. From what we have heard from the Minister of Health, she seems to think that the mere passing of this bill will be enough. People will keep spraying their lawns with carcinogenic chemicals just for the sake of having a nice lawn, without being informed by the federal government of the potential, but nonetheless real, danger of using pesticides.

We must go further, and the amendments before us today would take us there. If the government, particularly the Minister of Health, believes in the precautionary principle, if it wants to protect the health of children and pregnant women, it will have to adopt these amendments as soon as possible.

I think that right now, at report stage, the Minister of Health should make a necessary addition by including a date in this bill. It should be specified that the cosmetic use of pesticides in urban areas will be banned within three years.

I hope that the minister will be proposing other amendments before this debate is over.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-53, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 4 with the following:

“meets the requirements of subsection 43(4) or (5).”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-53, in Clause 80.1, be amended by

(a) replacing line 28 on page 61 with the following:

“such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament”

(b) replacing line 37 on page 61 with the following:

“time as the House of Commons, the Senate or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, may authorize”.