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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There are seven motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-53.

The Chair will not select Motions Nos. 5 and 6 since they require a royal recommendation.

The Chair will not select Motions Nos. 2 to 4 because they could have been presented at committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 7 to the House.

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate I will pass on some information which may be useful for members interested in Bill C-53 which could be before the House tomorrow.

In the event that members may be preparing report stage amendments I wish to draw the House's attention to a clerical error found in the report stage reprint of Bill C-53, the pest control products act. In subclause 2(2) on page 7 the words “a preponderance of evidence” are replaced by the words “reasonable certainty”.

Clerks at the table are available should members wish to obtain more information.

Committees of the House

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health.

In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, April 15, 2002, your committee has considered Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, and the committee agreed on Wednesday, May 29, 2002, to report it with amendment.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my first business question since I came, as I said, back home again.

Today we will continue with the debate on second reading of Bill C-55. This would be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill S-34, the royal assent bill, followed by consideration of a minor technical amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-23, the competition legislation.

Tomorrow we plan to resume business where it leaves off today, with Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as a backup, a bill which I know people are very enthusiastic about supporting.

In any case, it is my intention to call Bill C-15B as the first item of business on Monday.

On Tuesday, subject to progress made earlier, we will commence the report stage of Bill C-53, the pest control legislation. In the evening the House will be in committee of the whole on the Public Works and Government Services estimates, pursuant to our new rule.

Wednesday we plan to debate second reading of a bill respecting nuclear safety about which I gave information to House leaders yesterday. The bill will be introduced at the beginning of the week.

Thursday of next week, that is to say a week from today, shall be an allotted day, the last of this supply period which means, and I say this for the benefit of all hon. members and their plans for that day, that the House will sit into the evening or could sit as late as the evening, depending of course, to consider the main estimates and the appropriation act based thereon.

I want to thank all colleagues, if I can say so in conclusion, for their kind words upon my return as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

Supply

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough is being far too generous to the government. He mentioned earlier that he thought the problems arising in rural Canada were because the government ignored rural Canada, not that it was an intentional thing it was doing.

I want to run through a list of the problems we have in rural Canada. He talked a little about fisheries policies and how destructive they had been in his part of the country. We now have softwood lumber problems at the other end of the country in rural areas.

After all this time we still do not have a cost on Kyoto. This morning we heard that it would be somewhere between $5 billion to $12 billion a year. The government cannot decide which study or which number it should use as it tries to convince Canadians that Kyoto is a good idea.

We are all familiar with the gun law, Bill C-68, which was aimed directly at rural Canadians and drew a target on their backs.

We had a lot of hubbub last week over Bill C-5, the species at risk bill, and the fact that it contains no provisions for compensation. We just have another tired commitment that regulations may be made at some point. It has been very frustrating to hear some of the Liberal rural members try to take credit for making changes in the bill and then to hear them later laughing about the stunt they pulled on the farmers and on the media. That is really reprehensible.

We also have other things. Bill C-15B, the animal cruelty legislation, is also geared toward rural Canadians. Bill C-53, the pest control act, also deals with rural issues. Maybe we could use the pest control act to get rid of the DFO people who have invaded the prairies. These people have come in and said that they will not allow municipalities to put in new culverts unless they get permits from DFO.

Could it be that the government is so incompetent that it is actually doing these things to rural Canada by accident?

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by marking how disappointed and sad we are on this side of the House when the member for Mississauga South refused to give unanimous consent, the only member who did so, for the tabling of 8,000 names of people who wanted to be heard on this issue. Indeed, it is not just the Prime Minister of Canada who is silencing Canadians.

In addition to preventing children from being preyed upon by adults, there is another predator in our midst. It is transmitted through adults. I am talking about HIV, the AIDS epidemic. Youth aged 10 to 24 years are of particular importance with respect to HIV and AIDS. During this period of life many behaviour patterns are established that affect a young person's risk of being infected with HIV. Both within this time span and throughout his or her adult years the risk is increased the younger the person engaged in this activity. Early intervention is essential in helping to adopt and maintain protective behaviours. That includes protection from adults.

Even the pricey Health Canada website says that a wide range of activities must be implemented in communities to help minimize the risk of HIV transmission among young Canadians. One of the activities that must be implemented is the decrease in the older population preying upon young people.

Demographic studies show that young teenagers are the sector that is fastest growing in terms of rate of incidence of HIV, AIDS and other STDs. As of December 31, 2000, a total of 17,594 AIDS cases had been reported to the Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention. Of these, 601, 3.1% and growing, were diagnosed among youth aged 10 to 24 years. Therefore, one way to curb the incidence in young teens is to take measures to prevent adults from infecting young teens. The motion before us today would help minimize the risk of HIV from transmission because older people have a greater chance of having it.

Risk behaviour data among Canadian youth showed a potential for increased HIV transmission. According to the 1996 national population health survey, NPHS, the median age at first intercourse has declined from 18 years for men born between 1942 and 1946 to 17 years for men born 30 years later. Over the same period the age at first intercourse for women has declined from 20 years to 17 years. In the year 2000 it is even lower.

While the cohort that was aged 15 to 19 years at the time of the 1996 NPHS survey was too young to permit calculation of the median AFI, data suggests that a trend toward earlier AFI may be taking place among young women, but not necessarily for men. According to the data, 25.6% of young women in the cohort between 1977 to 1981 engaged in the activity by the age of 15 compared to 21.8% of women in the previous five year range cohort. As we can see, as the age of sexual consent decreases, so too does the median age of it actually happening.

In addition to the incidence of HIV and STDs, we also have the factor of pregnancy. A woman who is mature has a much better chance in terms of a healthy delivery and health for the mother than a girl who is 14, 15 or 16.

I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion brought forward by my party for the protection of children. It is important to clearly state from the outset why we in the official opposition brought the motion forward today. We did it for the children of Canada, our most vulnerable members of society. Whatever twisting and turning we hear today from the government, we must never forget the reason this motion was brought forward. It is for the protection of children. It is this message that I wish to stress to my constituents in the riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke.

This is about the protection of innocent children from predatory adults. As a mother of four young daughters, I was shocked to learn from my colleague from Regina, the lowest age of consent, as clearly set out in the Criminal Code of Canada, is 14, not 16 or 18 as the government has tried to suggest. In plain English the criminal code allows an adult who is 35 or 40 or 50 years of age to claim that a child who is only 14 years of age consented to a sexual activity.

The motion before us today would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. While many would argue that even 16 is too young and 18 is more appropriate, we believe that at a minimum the age of consent should be raised to 16. The motion is not about sexual activity between teens who are close in age, as that is a separate issue. Canada has one of the lowest age of consent laws in the developed world. The provinces and the Canadian police association are all in favour of raising the age of consent to at least age 16.

The federal Department of Justice in its own discussion paper, suggested that the age of consent was too low to provide effective protection from sexual exploitation by adults and children.

Why is the federal government so opposed to protecting children? The Prime Minister, as a former minister of justice was involved previously in proposing legislation for the repeal of seduction offences in Bill C-53 of that parliament. We know how much the government refuses to admit to its mistakes, especially the Prime Minister. One only has to recount the numerous scandals of the government and count the resignations that were not received to know this to be a fact.

In to the response to that observation, I can only say that there comes a time when petty political partisanship differences need to be set aside for the larger.

I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion, this very important issue with which parliamentarians and Canadians have been seized for a number of years and which has been brought sharply into focus, pardon the pun, by the Sharpe decision which has come down from the British Columbia court. This decision, I think, has caused many Canadians to question loopholes and some of the lax criminal justice response we have when dealing with the issue of child pornography.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. John's East. As a very fine member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, he is one who for many years has been advocating a stronger position from government in relation to this serious issue of pornography and its distribution.

The motion is a motion which I take to read as taking these steps “including but not limited to”; I see the motion as a gateway to a more activist and more interventionist approach on the part of government when dealing with this issue. Our Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports any legislation which will help to address and to eventually eradicate child pornography.

The myriad of problems surrounding this issue, including the hamstrung ability of the police to investigate in many instances, as well as the increased use of technology and the proliferation of this type of disgusting material becoming ever more readily available through the Internet, poses serious challenges for the law enforcement community. Investigation on the part of the government into all aspects of what we should do is very timely and extremely important. In fact, it is so important that I can think of no issue that the Department of Justice could be more actively engaged in at this time.

There are positives and negatives that we must look at when considering this issue of age of consent. We look forward to the government clearly putting on the record its position and what active role it might play in assessing the complications of this controversial issue. In fact, I believe we are going to hear divergent opinions on this issue. One of the perverse elements of the way in which the motion currently is worded is that it actually could have a negative impact on some criminal code sections by lowering the current age of 18 to 16. This is what we have to keep in mind. It is not simply a matter of a paintbrush sweeping across the code and stamping the age of 16 as being the appropriate one. There is a danger here.

With respect to this issue, Bill C-15, passed in 1989, addressed the question of age of consent, replacing the prior unsuitable legislation. That bill prohibited adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with boys or girls under the age of 14. That bill also made it illegal for adults in positions of trust or authority to have sexual contact with minors between, and here are the key words, the ages of 14 to 18. Therefore, by simply stamping 16 in its place there is a danger that a very naive, unworldly youth of the age of 17 might fall outside the parameters. We have heard the sad tales of people in positions of trust, those involved in the church, those in the school system, foster parents and sadly even parents, who take advantage of youth who are under the age of 18, not 16. We want to be careful not to narrow further the ability of the prosecution to proceed with charges when positions of trust are involved.

I note with interest that in 1981 the current Prime Minister, then the justice minister, proposed Bill C-53, which would have retained a broader version of the prohibition against sexual activity with a young person between those ages of 14 and 18. That bill was not adopted.

Raising the age of consent to 16 would have to be accompanied by an exemption permitting sexual contact with someone between the ages of 14 and 16 if there are only a few years difference between the actual partners. We are into an area of morality and we are into an area of practicality, one in which we would have to proceed with some caution.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw has many in society recoiling with dismay that a learned judge would in fact open the door to potential pedophiles and those who take advantage of youth, who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on societal norms.

Mr. Speaker, as you would be aware, Mr. Justice Shaw in handing down the Sharpe decision in my view broadened the interpretation of the current exemption or defence of artistic merit. Not only did he acquit Mr. Sharpe on some of the charges dealing with the material and whether he was in fact advocating or counselling illegal sexual activity, there was language in the obiter, that is, language in part of his decision, which in my view can be interpreted as, or one could glean that, it is expanding the artistic merit definition. I will quote from page 40 of the decision:

Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence.

Justice Sharpe went on to state that the “community standards” considered in determining obscenity do not apply, and further, the creator need only point to objective fact to support the defence and then the crown must disprove it.

There are real problems with that. When one looks at the definition of a story, if you will, that would fall into the category of having some artistic merit, it appears that the base level is that the story have a beginning, a plot and a conclusion. The material, however offensive and disgusting, is somehow to be gleaned as having artistic merit if it meets this very base level. I would suggest that we are mandated, obligated, to respond with legislation to close this legislative loophole.

The Progressive Conservative Party has been supportive in the past of the law enforcement community, victims' groups and child advocates who are constantly tasked and constantly struggling with the lack of resources available to them to undertake this monumental task. As I have said before, what could be a more fundamental issue? We know that the lasting impact on victims of sexual abuse is sometimes a life sentence. Very often the mental anguish, the detrimental effect on the development of young people, is everlasting. It is certainly incumbent upon parliament to take every available opportunity to make for a safer and kinder society.

We have heard from victims as recently as today at the justice committee. There was a very telling comment that I think warrants repeating. It dealt with the need for victims to have more support, a stronger voice, an ability to be heard in a substantive way by the triers of fact, by the individuals who ultimately will decide whether a person will be incarcerated and, after the fact, whether the person will be released. It talks directly to the issue of respect for and dignity of victims, whereas victims very often are unwittingly and irreversibly brought into a cold and foreign forum in which they have no control and of which they have no prior knowledge.

It is clear that there has to be an equitable approach taken by the government. This is why we need a victims' ombudsman's office.

We have a budget specifically set aside for the commissioner of corrections to deal with the concerns, some legitimate, of federal inmates. There is a federal budget allocated to ensure that inmates, some of whom are serving time for absolutely heinous crimes and have victimized numerous citizens, have an office where they can go if their steaks are burned, if they are not getting access to the Movie Channel or they do not have the ability to log on.

Yet victims very often are completely ignored. They have no outlet, no central office in the country, where they can go to find out about important things like parole hearings or information pertaining to response to treatment.

In conclusion, we very much support the motion before us, but I would like to seek unanimous consent, if I may, to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That, after the words “that the government immediately introduce legislation to”, the substitution be made of the words “eliminate the legal loophole of artistic merit and other measures to enhance the protection of children from pedophiles and child pornographers in light of recent court decisions”.

I anxiously await the positive response to my amendment from members present.

Privilege

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a notice sent out yesterday by the Standing Committee on Health. The notice misrepresented the role of the House in a way that seriously maligns parliament.

The notice sent out by the health committee indicated that its business for the day was Bill C-53. Bill C-53 was up for debate yesterday and had not yet passed second reading when the notice was sent. The committee chairman had presupposed that the House would pass Bill C-53. While that ended up being the outcome, the committee notice to study Bill C-53 should not have been sent out until the House had made the decision to refer the bill to committee.

I refer the House to a ruling from October 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding an advertisement put out by parliament before parliament approved it. The Speaker quoted the then member for Windsor West, the recent Deputy Prime Minister, as saying:

--when this advertisement...says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1...the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House--.

The Speaker's comment in 1989 ruled that the effect of presupposing a decision of the House may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.

We can draw a parallel between the 1989 case and the recent notice sent out by the health committee. If the committee gives the impression that Bill C-53 received second reading before the vote took place at second reading then its notice conveys the idea, as the former member for Windsor West argued, that the House adopted Bill C-53 at second reading since that would be Canadians' normal understanding of the process. The former Deputy Prime Minister argued that this sort of mockery of the parliamentary system amounts to contempt of parliament.

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege he did say:

--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

Mr. Speaker Fraser was in a quandary. He was not sure on which side he should rule so he gave a warning. He warned that next time he would rule on the side of granting a prima facie question of privilege.

This sort of thing has happened many times since those words were spoken. In the last two parliaments the Speaker had a tendency to look the other way. He did so when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group when no such group existed. He did so when the government announced the appointment of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation to set up the foundation.

A matter was raised by hon. member for Prince George--Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Another matter was raised on October 28, 1997 regarding the Department of Finance. These complaints headed other warnings.

On November 6, 1997 the Speaker said:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern...This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices...I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

These are strong words but such words cannot always be effective in defending the authority of this House. The fact that this behaviour continues undeterred demonstrates that the House must get serious.

Thankfully in this parliament the Speaker has taken these matters seriously. I will comment on two of those cases because they help to establish a pattern involving a particular minister.

Bill C-53 is sponsored by the same minister who was charged with contempt for leaking the contents of Bill C-15 before it was tabled in the House. When the Minister of Health was minister of justice, she was at it again with Bill C-36. Bill C-53 represents the minister's third offence, the latest tragedy to be preformed from her trilogy of contempt.

If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by its own members.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Pest Control Products Act

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-53, the pest control products act.

The bill is very important not only for the reasons the minister has put forward but also for many other reasons. This is far-reaching legislation. For the first time we have seen something which in a sense will have a direct impact on our community. Municipal politicians in the city of Ottawa are speaking in support of the bill, which is something we do not often see.

The bill will help ensure that our children get special protection from health risks posed by pesticides. To do so the government is enshrining in legislation the requirement to incorporate a modern risk assessment concept including additional safety factors to protect our children.

From a health and environmental aspect the bill requires that any aggregate exposure to pesticides from food, water, residential use and the cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way be assessed from here on in.

Another extremely important component about the bill is that the government is continuing to make strides to increase the protection of the health of Canadians. The newly introduced pest control products act will provide special protection for children and pregnant women, will facilitate sharing test data with other regulators and health professionals and will require older pesticides to be periodically re-evaluated.

It is exceptionally important for parliament to pass the bill as quickly as possible so it can be implemented.

I congratulate the minister on this initiative. As well, I congratulate all of the community interest groups who have written to the government and to our offices asking for the speedy passage of the legislation. I do not want to take up any more time except to say that I hope it passes quickly.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-53, which is about regulating pesticides. I am pleased to do so because prior to joining this place I held a pesticide applicator's licence for about 20 years and used pesticides in a very broad landscape, that being the forests on the coast of British Columbia. Of course that at times could be a controversial thing to do, but I think I did it very responsibly. I feel that as a consequence of that background I can bring a perspective to this issue that is different from many in the House

The average person has to think for a minute about what we mean when we say pesticide, because it can mean anything from the little spray thing used on insects to something spread by an airplane in Vietnam to knock out forest canopy. There are a lot of visual images. Pesticides is the umbrella term for herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. When we talk about using a pesticide, then, we have to define what the pest is, and the pest is in the eye of the beholder. What is a pest today might not be a pest tomorrow.

We are all sophisticated enough to recognize that when it comes to a management regime, it is important to define what we are trying to do and to target whatever we are trying to do as closely as possible. That is something I took pride in doing, because for the most part the kinds of applications I was involved with were done by hand and done, in my case, on an individual tree basis.

This did give me a certain perspective relating to how the pesticide management review agency should operate. At that time, if a product had an agricultural label, even though that might be a perfect formulation for use in the forest, one might be pre-empted from using it. Because the agricultural market then was a lot larger than the forest management market, many companies refused to pay the serious upfront expenditures required in order to get that kind of labelling because it was simply not worth it.

We oftentimes felt we were using chemicals that we would have preferred not to, but we were using them because they were the only ones authorized under the federal permitting process. I have not kept up with all of the detail behind this, but in all likelihood that probably is still occurring. I see that the legislation still includes as a part of the process that the effectiveness of the chemical be listed and I think this is counterproductive. This is one part of the bill that I definitely would like to see changed. Let the customer, the industry, whatever sector is using that formulation, determine whether or not the chemical is effective.

I can give a somewhat humorous example. When maple trees are cut down they coppice, they tend to grow up from the stump. There is a lot of energy in the roots and they have this multiple stem coppice that comes up. We found this most disconcerting in some areas that had a lot of maple. We wanted to establish a new crop, but that is not what we wanted so we tried different chemicals and chemical formulations and nothing worked. Then we had a crew go through a hillside and inject the individual stems. We found that it worked sometimes and not other times.

Through trial and error and scientific analysis we checked to see why it would work here and not work there. We found it was working where we had a somewhat lazy operator, a lazy worker who did not treat every stem or every coppice. We figured the biology is that by keeping a few alive, the material recycled enough times that it got everywhere and then eventually killed the entire coppice network.

We learned a huge lesson by accident from a worker who was not following instructions. The very way we have had some of our best scientific discoveries has been through laboratory accidents or observations where things have happened overnight in a Petri dish or in some other experiment.

The government should try to stay away from regulating all of the uses or potential uses and let industry and the user make that decision. Of course, safety has to be the first and foremost concern.

Those are some of my key observations. I am a great believer that target treatment is important. Operational and other research and development should be encouraged. The way to encourage that is to have not too much specified detail on how people utilize the material.

Other than that, the bill is going in the right direction. I am encouraged that we have let local usage be determined at the local level. That is very important.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Vancouver Island North.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-53, a bill that deals with pesticides. There is a lot of information and some misinformation concerning pesticides and I think that above all else we must ensure that the precautionary principle is upheld. All of us here in the House want to ensure that public health and public safety are number one, but we want to make sure that whatever decisions we make on pesticides are based on scientific fact. Herein lies the difficulty: getting to the facts of the matter.

Pesticides are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they deal with removing pests, which is necessary for the production of the food products all of us eat, but on the other hand there can be side effects. I will use the example of DDT. We know that DDT has saved the lives of millions of people around the world by preventing malaria and other diseases. In fact it has saved a lot of crops. On the other hand, on our continent we have seen that DDT has had a disastrous effect upon raptors. We saw the decimation of the populations of bald eagles, golden eagles, peregrine falcons and many others when their eggs became too fragile for the little chicks to live. As a result, DDT was rightly banned in North America. We want to make sure in dealing with pesticides that science and public safety will be upheld.

I only have a few minutes so I will deal with an issue that is important in my heart and to many of my constituents and that is the safety of children. We know that all of us are living in a chemical soup. It is a soup made up of chemicals from pesticides and from agricultural products that are dumped into the water and get into our environment. Sadly, when we track this over the last 25 years we see a very disturbing trend. We see a massive increase in asthma and a massive increase in childhood tumours, from acute lymphocytic leukemia to tumours of the central nervous system and tumours of the bone and muscle. This is very disturbing because these tumours have been and are very rare, but the numbers are increasing quite dramatically.

If we look at different demographic patterns and different areas where these tumours and cancers are found, we see a trend that correlates in some cases to areas where people are exposed to a high level of pesticides. In my province of British Columbia in the Okanagan Valley, in areas around Prince George and indeed in my riding in Sooke, I see a very disturbing trend of an unbelievable increase in the amount of tumours that are relatively rare, but in profusion in these areas, and a parallel with the implementation and use of certain pesticides.

What we in our party are saying is let us make sure that pesticides are safe. We applaud the bill in the sense that it deals with issues such as children and issues such as using science, but we think it can go further. We think the government and the minister should be using scientific information not only from within Canada but from around the world. Why do we not hook up with other researchers around the world and use the best information, the best science, to apply to the work that we are doing here? Surely countries around the world, all of us, are in the same position. All of us want to ensure whether certain pesticides should or should not be used. We are asking the government to link up, to make official linkages with other researchers around the world to ensure that the best research information is used in the evaluation of pesticides.

Other things can be done. There are alternatives to pest control, such as using certain trees and shrubs, using certain lawn products that are not pesticides, digging weeds out by hand and keeping our lawns well watered and fertilized. We should remember that a healthy lawn is a healthy deterrent to weeds. We also can use different vegetable gardens. Indeed, if we plant alternative plants we can find a cross benefit in protecting gardens from certain pests. We also can use biodegradable products, cultivate our gardens and rotate our crops each year. These are alternatives to the very easy response, which is to simply spray our lawns with a pesticide.

What the government can do is work with the other two jurisdictions, the provinces and the municipalities, on a public education program to tell the public that there are other ways to protect our lawns, that there are alternatives to pesticides. Were we to do that, we would see a dramatic reduction in pesticide use among homeowners. Although homeowners represent only 15% of all pesticide users, why it is important is that it is homeowners who use pesticides inappropriately. That is the key. I would ask the Minister of the Environment to work with his counterparts across the country on a public information program that would dramatically reduce pesticide use by showing how to use pest control alternatives. We must remember that pesticides are only one of the choices we have in this whole area.

There are other things we need to do. We need to look at risk management, accountability and transparency. One of the things we have found that is problematic in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is that there is not enough transparency, not enough accountability, in determining the evaluation process. In my riding and I am sure in many others, Canadians are concerned. They do not have the information. They are concerned when people get sick after being exposed to pesticides. They do not have answers, but they want and indeed deserve answers from the government. Why does the minister not stand up with his counterparts and answer the questions the public has?

As an example, we can look at the gypsy moth eradication program that took place on Vancouver Island. Low flying planes sprayed pesticides all over Victoria. The question is, was it useful? Another question is, was it necessary? I think the answer to both is no. No, it was not useful. No, it is not necessary. Clearly we cannot have these knee-jerk responses to dealing with problems as opposed to having well thought out, reasoned ideas and solutions to deal with the management of pests that exist among us.

Another problem we have in British Columbia is the issue of the northern pine beetle. The northern pine beetle is having devastating effects on the forest industry in my province. People who fly over northern British Columbia see a swath of forest that has been destroyed by the northern pine beetle. It is staggering. The economic effect has been devastating. That, combined with the punitive American softwood lumber tariffs that have been imposed on our country, has been devastating for our lumber industry. My colleagues in our party have asked the minister across the way to please intervene with the forest industry and stakeholders and deal with this problem. If it is not dealt with, this summer will be a very bleak one indeed for the forestry industry as the northern pine beetle continues its devastating ways, destroying larger and larger swaths of the Canadian northern forest industry.

There is a huge movement in the country to deal with the abolition of genetically modified organisms. A lot of emotion surrounds the issue. The fact is that if we did not have GMOs large numbers of crops we normally have would be destroyed. We cannot forget that GMOs provide our burgeoning population with food. Who are we, who can afford products that are not modified in any way, to tell developing countries that they cannot have genetically modified foods?

GMO foods are saving millions of lives across the world. We cannot deny those food products and seeds to countries that are on the brink of starvation. If they did not have them, crops would be destroyed by normal pests that eradicate foods in those developing countries. We need to stand up and say that genetically modified organisms must be allowed if they are safe and we must do the research to ensure that they are safe. On the other hand, we cannot have a knee-jerk response and deny the developing world genetically modified foodstuffs that will save people's lives.

It is a balancing act. We support a balancing act that of course favours public safety, but again, let us respond to these challenges based on fact and science and not based on emotion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests. It is no secret that the population of Canada and Quebec is increasingly concerned by the overuse of pesticides. Through this bill, we will be bringing up to date the 1969 legislation, which is 33 years old.

During the last parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where I had the opportunity to participate for almost a year in hearings on this issue. We tabled a very substantive report, which made positive suggestions to the government asking it to take action on the issue.

After hearing very many witnesses, we came to the conclusion that the concern of Canadians and Quebecers was justified and that pesticides could pose a serious threat to human health and the environment.

I must say that Canada's policy on pesticides leaves a lot to be desired. As a matter of fact, regulations and the pesticides management system regulating the use of pesticides have remained unchanged for the last 30 years. Obviously, the government uses outdated scientific data to register this kind of product, which poses an extremely serious threat to society in general and especially for children, pregnant women, fetuses and seniors. During the hearings of the committee last year, Dr. Kelly Martin, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment stated, and I quote:

I would say there's concern. There's limited evidence, and there's quite a lot of concern over that. It's not like leukemia and lymphoma, for which we have reasonably good evidence to act on. Breast cancer is the other big concern with pesticides.

Dr. Merryl Hammond, founder of Action Chelsea for the Respect of the Environment, also expressed her concerns to the committee, and I quaote:

Many studies published in prestigious, peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological journals and reports point to strong associations between chemical pesticides and serious health consequences, including--and I'll just read this list briefly--endocrine disruption and fertility problems, birth defects, brain tumours and brain cancer: cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, childhood leukemia, cancer clusters in communities, gastric or stomach cancer, learning disabilities, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, canine malignant lymphoma, and various acute effects—

Children are vulnerable in part because they run a greater risk of exposure to pesticides due to the specific characteristics of their development and physiology. For example, they eat more food, drink more water and breathe more air per kilogram of body weight than adults and can thus absorb larger quantities of the pollutants present in the environment.

The main recommendation made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development was therefore for the government to review its pesticide management system and put the principle of safety foremost in its process of registering pesticide products.

From my examination of Bill C-53 I am pleased to note that Health Canada acknowledges that the primary objective of the bill in question is to protect Canadians, Canadian children in particular, and to ensure that there is an ample supply of healthy foods.

To that end, Bill C-53 includes provisions requiring the producers of pest control products to point out adverse effects on health, and older pest control products to be re-evaluated 15 years after registration, and giving the minister the power to withdraw them from the market if the information required is not provided. It also gives increased powers of inspection and provides for higher maximum fines. These can go as high as $1 million for the most serious offences when pesticides are not marketed or used in accordance with the legislation.

As well, in many respects, the new process allows greater public participation through consultations held before major decisions are taken in respect of registration, special review or re-evaluation. Under the provisions of the new pest control products act, anyone will be able to make a request to the minister for a special review of the registration of a product.

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. The public will have numerous opportunities to participate and will have access to most of the information received by the review panel.

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

I would remind the House that when witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and we tabled the report, they complained vigorously about the PMRA and very serious problems within this government structure. I hope that, with this bill, the government will have listened and taken action to ensure a truly rapid response. When people put questions to PMRA representatives, they will receive a speedy response.

Information on tests will also be available. The public may inspect the results of scientific tests submitted to justify registration requests. If what the government does in practice is consistent with a desire to protect society, as set out in the bill, it will be possible to meet Health Canada's primary objective. Note that I said if.

However, allow me to express a reservation with regard to Bill C-53, which does not fully follow up on a recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Environment. The committee felt that, by 2006, there should be a re-evaluation of all pesticides registered before 1995. Unfortunately, the bill does not seem to have set a deadline with regard to the re-evaluation of old pesticides. Therefore, I hope the government will reverse its decision and will include into its legislation an amendment to that effect. What is the point of tightening up pesticides registration standards if products registered over the last 30 years are not re-evaluated? Their harmfulness will remain the same and children, pregnant women and seniors will not be better protected for all that.

In that regard, the organization called Campaign for Pesticide Reduction has shown a cautious optimism with regard to the health minister's Bill C-53. According to the organization, in order to be effective, the new legislation should allow for the withdrawal of the registration of pesticides recognized as being harmful to health.

I agree with that position. If the health minister really wants to protect health, she will have to bring forward in committee an amendment providing that as soon as a pest control product is recognized as harmful to health, it will be removed from the registry. This is critical.

In my opinion, there is another deficiency in the bill, that is the cosmetic use of pesticides. Allow me to quote from the environment committee report.

A number of witnesses informed the committee that they are opposed to pesticide use for esthetic purposes in urban areas. According to the he Working Group on the Health Dangers of Urban Pesticide Use, Nature-Action Québec, Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides and the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, pesticides are used principally for esthetic purposes in urban areas and this poses an unnecessary risk for those applying the products and the general public. It cannot be emphasized enough that children at all stages of growth are the primary victims of our overuse of chemicals. As many of the effects of exposure to pesticides are chronic, they may well suffer the consequences of exposure all their lives and even pass this on to the next generation

The Committee firmly believes that a moratorium on pesticide use for esthetic purposes is necessary until science has proven that the pesticides involved do not constitute a health threat and some light has been shed on the consequences of their use in urban areas. Pesticide use should only be permitted in an emergency, such as a serious pest infestation which threatens the health of people and the environment.

This was one of the main recommendations of the committee at that time, which was unfortunately ignored by the government when it drafted Bill C-53. I cannot understand how it can be that the government could set aside such an essential recommendation. People must realize that the mania for a beautiful and totally dandelion-free lawn is not without danger. Young children are the ones most likely to play in the grass, in parks or other areas in their neighbourhood.

There are, however, too many carcinogenic pesticides which are harmful to their growth and may even cause leukemia. It is very urgent and very strongly advised that the government add one recommendation and add a clause to its bill, which would be along the lines of finally setting a deadline for stopping the use of pesticides on lawns.

If we really want to have as our sole objective the protection of the health of society in general, there must be some compromises and we will have to accept having a few yellow flowers in our lawns. What is worse: childhood cancer or a few dandelions? I think that the answer is self-evident.

Moreover, we have succeeded in developing alternatives to pesticides for our lawns. In this respect, it is important to mention organic farming, which seeks to promote and protect biodiversity, sustainable development and the environment. The fact is that traditional farming causes soil erosion and degradation. The benefits of organic farming are threefold.

First, not using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers eliminates the potential danger of damage to the environment. Second, the absence of synthetic fertilizers forces farmers to be concerned with soil conservation ethics, which means maintaining and recycling soil nutrients, thus reducing the risk of pollution around the farm. Third, in winter, soil recovery with forage crops, winter grains and cover crops is emphasized to improve soil condition and reduce the risk of erosion, degradation and compaction.

A number of cities in Canada and in Quebec have already begun using environmentally friendly means, similar to organic farming, to maintain their parks and lawns. According to Nature-Action Québec, it is possible to have a nice lawn without using chemicals. I do not intend to give a gardening and groundskeeping 101 course, but appendix 11.1 of the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development includes some useful tips for achieving a good looking lawn without the use of pesticides.

These are practical yet very simple tips. Companion planting works wonders in gardens. Many insects are repelled by garlic, chive, mint, anise, coriander, geranium, nasturtium and many other plants. For example, putting such plants close to rosebushes will keep aphids away.

Natural substances may also be used to catch pests. A container full of a mixture of molasses, lemon juice and water will attract earwigs, and they will drown. Slugs react in a similar fashion to beer and honey. As for carpenter ants, they are attracted to and poisoned by a mixture of peanut butter and boric acid.

A number of natural infusions make excellent pesticides. Mixtures made of rhubard, onion, garlic and soap, for instance. They can be sprayed on vegetables, put on the soil, applied to tree trunks or poured directly on plants.

There is no need to spread carcinogenic products over our lawns. Natual products work fine. The government could have prohibited the use of pesticides for aesthetic purposes, because there are natural and effective alternatives. Unfortunately, the bill seems to ignore the importance of research into and development of organic pesticides.

Nonetheless, Bill C-53 is a step in the right direction. It will allow for the review of legislation that is 30 years old and now outdated, given the evolution and progress of science. It will also establish the paramountcy of the principle of safety and general health protection. Yes, there are shortcomings, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. That being said, this bill will provide for greater transparency and increased public involvement. It provides for very severe fines for companies that try to give misleading information. We will now be able to progress, but we cannot stop at this.

This bill must become a catalyst to raise awareness among people that pesticides are toxic. These are products whose sole purpose is to kill. Apple producers make up to 16 applications of pesticides per year to prevent the apple scab, yet this fungus, when appearing in small amounts, only has a minor effect on the nutritional value of the fruit.

Sooner of later, we, as a society, have to make a choice: do we want to eat poisoned apples and have lawns that stink of chemicals, or live in a more healthy environment?

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from the Conservative Party who spoke just a moment ago. He made some good points and I want to follow up a little on some of the points he made and some of the points made by members of my own caucus about Bill C-53.

Just to remind colleagues in the House and people who are watching this on television, this is an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests. It was put forward by the Minister of Health.

The Canadian Alliance supports the legislation. It has been a long time coming. The last time we had anything done with this legislation was in 1969 when the original bill was introduced and very little has happened to it since that point. The Alliance supports many aspects of it but we do have some concerns. I want to run through a few of them right now.

As was pointed out a minute ago, about 91% of all pesticide use in Canada is by agriculture. As someone who comes from a rural riding where we obviously use pesticides on the farms, we want to have some say on these things.

The first thing I would point out is that a few years ago when the Pest Management Regulatory Agency came into being as a user fee based agency, one of the things people were hoping was that it would be run more like a business, that it would be more efficient, leaner and that it would approve the use of pesticides or turn them down, either way, in a much quicker way. However we found it to be completely the opposite.

When the government allowed the PMRA to go its own way it used those extra user fees to build a bigger bureaucracy and service actually got worse. It took much longer to approve the use of pesticides than previously and in fact the fees started to go up. The real concern in this legislation is that none of those things were addressed. The PMRA, in the eyes of a lot of people, is still not nearly as efficient and effective as it could be. Unfortunately that is something that simply was not addressed in this legislation.

There is one thing that would have helped a lot. In the legislation, any active ingredient in a chemical used in Canada which has triggered some kind of concern in another OECD country can then be reviewed by the minister to see if there are any health effects in Canada. We support that idea, but the corollary should be there as well, which is that if another OECD country, whose standards we respect, approves the use of a drug then why in the world should it have to go through the same process in Canada all over again? That is what happens. The member from the Tories spoke about that a moment ago, as have members of the Alliance.

What that does is effectively drive the cost of these chemicals up for farmers, which means that at a time when farmers are very hard pressed, after years of drought and low commodity prices, they have to pay ever more for chemicals. Why not use the standards of other countries whose science we respect, such as the United States, the U.K. and Europe?

If on the one hand their standards are good enough to trigger a review if we are concerned about safety, then on the other hand their standards should be good enough if those countries are approving a chemical. We think we need to expedite the process by taking into account the science that already has been done in these other countries. That is one of the amendments we would like to see made to the legislation.

We also would like to see the bill amended to include specific approval procedures for minor use chemicals. The member just spoke about that a few minutes ago and it is very important. It is also important that when this legislation is being proposed and done that we take into account the concerns of the agricultural community. Again, 91% of pesticide use is through agricultural producers. As I mentioned a minute ago one of the biggest concerns we have is the length of time it takes to approve new chemicals.

Somebody mentioned that drugs are often approved in other countries because it takes so long to approve them in Canada. This is not only true of chemicals through the PMRA, it is also true of drugs through Health Canada. Two things often happen. Either people have to forgo the use of effective chemicals and pay a very high price for that in the form of lost productivity on the farm or, as was pointed out, use chemicals that are actually much harsher but which have already been approved.

In other words, instead of using the ideal chemical to deal with a very specific pest, one that is newer and therefore probably more environmentally sensitive, people end up using older chemicals. We do not have a problem with the newer chemicals staying in the environment for a long time because they completely break down. That is another problem that we simply want to draw attention to.

We are comfortable as a party with the idea of a public registry. We believe it is only fair that if people have concerns about pesticides they can find out about them through online resources like the Internet.

On more inspections and higher fines up to $1 million for violations, I want to point out that those are interesting components of the bill. When people use chemicals on their lands which have not been approved in Canada, the chemicals can drift over into somebody else's field. We all know stories of that happening and how it affects crops. The government is now prepared to impose a $1 million fine for violations. Is it not interesting how that is distinct from how the government has approached the endangered species legislation? If the government comes in and steals one's livelihood by putting land out of bounds for one's own use, it is not compelled to provide any remuneration for doing that.

However in Bill C-53 the government is going out of its way to make sure inspections are done and huge fines are in place for anybody who uses chemicals that have not received approval through the government. I simply wanted to point to what I believe to be a contradiction between that bill and this bill.

All members of our party are very supportive of legislation that brings more transparency and scrutiny to the use of chemicals in the environment. However we want the government to be sensitive to the needs of the people who actually use these chemicals. The experts are people on the farm. Ninety-one per cent of pesticide use is on the farm. We urge the government to take into account the concerns of people on the farm.

I simply mention again that the PMRA is really a problem that has not been addressed in the bill. It still takes far too long and is much too expensive to get chemicals approved. We want the government to use the science of other countries whose science we respect as a guide to whether or not these products should be approved or in some cases turned down. We do not have any problem with them being turned down but it should be based on science.

Finally, we urge the government to be open to the idea of amendments. The Canadian Alliance is prepared to move amendments to the bill. We hope the government will understand that we are approaching the bill from a point of goodwill. We want to see effective legislation. I think the government will find that the Canadian Alliance will bring forward some very constructive amendments at committee stage.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-53. Before I get into the meat of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that you were not in the chair when it was mentioned that the members for Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg South used to chase DDT fogging wagons. I am sure this must be a form of entertainment in the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba. Coming from west of the city of Winnipeg, I can assure all members that we never did chase DDT fogging wagons. That may well speak to the level of abilities of the members from the province of Manitoba.

Bill C-53 is legislation that should have been before the House quite a while ago, certainly in the beginning stages of the government's first mandate. This piece of legislation goes back to 1969. It has been some 33 years since it has been in place. It should be updated on a regular basis because this is a part of the industry that changes quite dramatically, not only from year to year but in fact from month to month.

It was suggested by a previous minister of agriculture of the day, Mr. Don Mazankowski, that this legislation should come forward to deal with any number of issues. However, this has not happened. The government was somewhat negligent in its own opportunities to bring forward a very sound piece of legislation. The legislation does have its warts and pimples, however, in saying that, we believe it is far superior to the piece of legislation that has been in place since 1969.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always insisted that the pesticide legislation come forward, for two major reasons. The first is to evaluate the effects of the exposure and toxicity of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals on vulnerable parts of our population, obviously the younger individuals among us as well as older people who have a tendency to be more susceptible to the negative effects of pesticides and herbicides. We believe very strongly that the legislation should have come forward for that purpose.

We would also like to see an educational initiative undertaken with the ultimate goal of reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides. That does not necessarily mean that we should not replace them with alternate pesticides and herbicides that are better not only for the environment but for the health of our citizens. That is obviously where we should be heading. To a degree, Bill C-53 does speak to that particular end and goal.

I must say, however, that this is like all pieces of legislation developed and drafted by the department. It does not necessarily encompass all of the necessary nuances to make it perfect. That is why we have the process we do, whereby after this reading it will go back to committee, which will debate it, have an opportunity to listen to all stakeholders and people affected by this and hopefully come back with some changes or amendments to the legislation that in fact will make it better. Nobody has a lock on ideas, least of all the government. We hope that there is some open-mindedness and we hope that the government is prepared to listen to some of those very positive amendments to the legislation to in fact make it better.

I mention that because there are a number of shortcomings in the legislation. I simply will mention them in passing. I know that our member sitting on the health committee, the member for Richmond--Arthabaska, will be able to take our position forward and hopefully change the legislation.

First, Bill C-53 fails to expedite access to newer and safer pest management products. I will speak to that a little later, but the ability to bring forward newer and safer pesticides is not built into the legislation. That is so very, very important because there are pesticides, herbicides and chemicals out there that are much better for the environment and much better for human health and safety, but we do not have the built in opportunity to bring them forward under our current regulatory system.

The bill also fails to differentiate between the commercial and the cosmetic uses of pesticides. I come from a riding that is dependent on agriculture. Agriculture, in order to not only feed Canadians but also feed a greater number of people outside our domestic market, is dependent upon and requires the ability to use pesticides and herbicides to grow that crop.

Unfortunately we have not differentiated between that absolute necessity of a commercial requirement for pesticides and herbicides and a cosmetic pesticide in this legislation. They are dramatically different, particularly in our agricultural areas. I am sure Canadians appreciate that.

The legislation also fails to translate into viable alternatives to the current regime and does not translate into a workable registration system. Again, I speak to the PMRA, and I will get to that in the not too distant future.

Also, the legislation does not provide adequate transparency. Agricultural stakeholders agree that transparency is necessary but not at the cost of allowing public access to confidential business information.

Agriculture is very important with respect to this, and I would like to talk about the PMRA. For those people who do not know PMRA, that is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The PMRA reports to the Department of Health and is responsible for the registration of any chemical pesticide or herbicide for use in Canada.

The problem is that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency does not have the ability to react in a timely fashion. The bill fails to create that mechanism that would speed up the registration of proven low risk pesticides. The bill fails to create an effective mechanism that would speed up the registration of minor use pesticides.

Speeding up the registration of minor use and low risk pesticides would allow the PMRA to dictate more resources to studying more complex new pesticide applications. The bill does not call for an ombudsman or a proper oversight committee.

The two issues I talked about were the registration of new pesticides and minor use pesticides. In Canada we have an agricultural industry, a horticultural industry, a fruit industry, that unfortunately is a very small part of a very small market.

The agriculture committee just had the opportunity to travel across Canada from coast to coast. One of the issues that was consistent from coast to coast was the fact that we did not have the ability to react with respect to minor use registration of pesticides.

Right now in British Columbia there are not sufficient tools in that chemical chest to pull from that chest the proper pesticides to use on the product. However the United States, which is our major trading partner, has the ability to use many more chemicals and pesticides on products.

The irony here is that we can import a product of the Americans, having had them use a chemical which is not registered in Canada. The product may well have residue on it but it is perfectly all right to import that product. We in Canada can grow the same product but we cannot use the same chemical used by the Americans. In most cases we have to depend upon a chemical that is harsher than the chemical in the U.S., a chemical that well should and could be registered in Canada.

We believe very seriously that there must be a built in harmonization in the PMRA system. If the chemical can be used by one trading partner of ours in the United States, then we should be able to use that science to register the product in Canada. It would certainly assist our producers, both with the registration of product in general terms as well as minor use registration.

We talked about the inability to differentiate between the commercial and the cosmetic use of pesticides.

The bill does not speak to the cosmetic use. I assume it was left out by the government on purpose when drafting the legislation. It was suggested earlier by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that the federal government should have indicated its desire to put forward a regulation or restriction on cosmetic pesticides.

I do not feel the same way. I believe very strongly that the municipalities have the right and should have the right to dictate to their own users, customers, clients and constituencies as to whether there should or should not be the ability to use cosmetic pesticides in that municipality. The reason I say this is not that I am necessarily totally in favour of cosmetic pesticides, although I must admit, other than a few things in this House, dandelions really do infuriate me.

However I believe it is the right of municipalities to make that call, as they have with things like smoking bylaws. Municipalities have made the decision as to whether they should or should not allow smoking in public places. We have seen this in the city of Ottawa where it has decided that there will be no smoking in any public place. However constituencies of other municipalities decided there should be more open smoking bylaws.

I remember in another life I fought a battle with respect to Sunday shopping. That decision was made by the municipalities, not by the federal government or the provincial government. It is the individual municipalities, and their constituents, that should have the right to say what goes on in those areas. Therefore I do not have difficulty with not having the federal government place conditions in this legislation.

There are a couple of other areas that have been touched on in the legislation. The bill provides that any person may apply for a change in maximum residue limits for a product in the registration process. Maximum residue limits must be based on science. By allowing anyone to apply for an MRL for a pesticide confuses the nature of the registration process and allows for any interest group to apply for an MRL. Registration should be based on sound science and not on political procedure.

What this is saying, which I believe is wrong, is that any interest group or any contrary thought to the industry or any user group or stakeholder can simply come forward and ask for a change to the maximum residue limits. This will open up what I believe will be a number of frivolous situations where a lot of legitimate producers of pesticides and herbicides may well be chased out of the country.

That also ties into the special review section of the legislation. It says that, generally speaking, the special review section of the bill is poorly worded. The legislation fails to define the parameters under which a special review could be initiated. The minister is likely to be inundated with public requests for reviews. A request for a special review must be based on known or assumed product risk or scientific evidence. Unfortunately, this again lends itself to abuse when under special reviews anyone can come forward under any circumstance and simply stop a legitimate product from being produced and used in the marketplace.

The third area I have some concerns is the public access to confidential business information. The public will have access to confidential business information once a product has been approved. Members of the public will be able to view only confidential business information with ministerial approval, which we recognize may have its own flaws built into that process.

Access to registry information is currently provided for within the Access to Information Act. The current regime also protects confidential business information. We suggest that it should go back to that area of access to information.

I go back to the agricultural community and its need and desire to deal with legitimate minor use registrants as well as registrants to new pesticides. The PMRA has deficiencies and it is important that we rectify those deficiencies or we will not have the ability to produce the way we produce today. It is important that the legislation deal with that regime and that we look at a serious harmonization process with respect to the United States and Canada particularly. Even beyond that we need a harmonization process that would encompass the globe because at the current time we trade globally. It is important that we have the ability to import and export products that would deal with the same types of pesticides.

Agriculture now accounts for 91% of the total use of pesticide sales in Canada. It is important that the legislation recognize a need for good logical pesticide regulations and we must have the stakeholders of agriculture involved in the legislation.

It used to be that young children would chase fog wagons. It used to be that farmers and producers perhaps did not have the same kind of care and caution when dealing with pesticides. That has changed quite dramatically.

Producers now know that pesticides and herbicides, chemicals of any sort, are very expensive. Therefore it is best to reduce the use of pesticides, not increase the use. It is better to use a better, more environmentally friendly product than one that is not environmentally friendly like we have seen in the past. Those pesticides have been taken off the market.

Producers want the ability to be able to have more choice in those chemicals and would like to be able to have a better opportunity to have some minor use registration. As producers farmers in Canada account for only 3% of the world total pesticide use. The United States accounts for 33% of the world pesticide use and 25% of the pesticide use is accounted for in western Europe. Canada is a very small player, but a player nonetheless, that must have good legislation.

The Progressive Conservative caucus will support the legislation going forward. We will vote to make sure it gets into committee because it should have been there at least 10 years ago and it is about time that it got to the committee level. The government was changing 10 years ago. If it could not put this legislation before us in 10 years then obviously there are more deficiencies than just this legislation. There are deficiencies in the government itself.

We support this going back to committee and hope, beyond hope, that the committee and the department will listen to valuable amendments that will be proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party.