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

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I continue my speech by going over, one more time, the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which, on the issue of Bill C-53 on pesticides, recommended among other things that there be a transparent and open process in order to build the public's trust in pest management regulations.

It also recommended that the new legislation make it a condition of registration that applicants carry out ongoing monitoring after registration.

It recommended that existing pesticides be re-evaluated.

It also recommended that adequate independent funding be provided under the legislation. Indeed, because of the shortfalls in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 budgets, the agency responsible for monitoring and registering the products has delayed its re-evaluation program of existing pesticides, because it ran out of money. Of course, this was a very legitimate request by the committee.

It also recommended that the government immediately establish a research program on pesticides that is specific to child health and that it ensure adequate funding.

Why child health? Our children are those who are the most likely to develop health problems that may be caused by pesticides because we continue to tell them to play outside. They roll in the grass.

We want them to play, to be vigilant and to be active. Of course, they take advantage of nice lawns and nice landscapes. They have a lot of fun, but this puts them in direct contact with pesticides that are sprayed not only on lawns, but also on field crops.

Since these pesticides are sprayed, winds can carry them to the lawns of people who do not use pesticides. Pesticides sprayed on essentially agricultural areas may end up on lawns; it is possible.

Of course, it was a very legitimate request on the part of the committee to ask that there be a research program on pesticides that is specific to child health.

The committee also recommended that incentives be provided for organic agriculture, that chemical pesticides be banned and replaced with natural or organic fertilizers, which is totally normal.

When we talk about incentives, we mean money. It takes money to develop organic alternatives to chemical pesticides and put them on the market. Therefore, investment in research is necessary. Incentives are also required to encourage farmers to use natural or organic pesticides.

The report also recommended that the government develop a policy on organic farming. Such a policy should include tax incentives, an interim support program for the transition period, and technical support for farmers.

Obviously, there is nothing in the bill before us in terms of tax incentives or other forms of incentives in favour of organic farming. There is no money. This is typical of what we have been seeing from this government. It proposes nice policies and sets nice priorities but it does not invest the money required to achieve our objectives and our ideals.

Again, it can never be said often enough. I support my colleagues who took part in the work of the committee and who had the opportunity to propose amendments. The amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois were rejected because we were asking for real incentives for the development of organic farming, with organic and natural pesticides. We wanted tax credits and other incentives for farmers.

Nearly 60% of my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, located along the Ottawa River and the Lac des Deux-Montagnes, is made up of farmland. It must be noted that in the Mirabel area, a beautiful area that all my colleagues in the House should visit this summer, we have witnessed one of the largest migration since the deportation of the Acadians, with the Mirabel expropriations.

At the time they had announced 90,000 acres. Of course retrocession occurred in 1985. From that year on the voracious appetite and the requirements of the federal government have been reduced considerably. No later than yesterday, we learned--through documents that were released from the archives under a federal government's act requiring that these documents be released after a 30 years period--that Cabinet already knew in January 1971 that 22,000 acres more than needed had been expropriated.

Moreover, some 1,700 people were about to or had been displaced. In 1971, the government was already aware of that. Our current Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Indian Affairs, was part of the Cabinet involved in this decision. It was decided to go ahead with the purchase of these 22,000 acres anyhow because the process had been set in motion and the government did not want to be sued by the public. The fact remains that at the time it already knew that 22, 000 acres more than needed had been expropriated and that 1,700 people were going to have to move, to be deported in fact.

Some of them were able to get their land back starting in 1985. The fact remains that for 14 or 15 years they were victims of a terrible expropriation and their land was ruined. As a result field crops in the Mirabel area and large farms were broken up. Later land and properties were rented out. New farmers came in. Today we have a wide range of farmers.

This gives you an idea of the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel where farms are now smaller but just as profitable and increasingly more into organic farming. They use less and less GMOs. All they want is to practice organic farming. We support labelling to be able to say that indeed we sell natural and organic products.

I am proud today to speak on behalf of the farmers in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. They have fine and economically viable farms. These farms are modern, with a diversified production. More and more, farmers are turning to organic farming and natural foods with a much better yield. More and more consumers, especially in Quebec, are interested in organic food. There is good reason for the Quebec government's wanting to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is what is wanted by the people of Quebec, who are concerned with environmental balance. This is a societal choice by Quebecers.

Once again, it is for good reason that the municipality of Hudson went to the appeal court and fought for its right to ban the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. In Quebec, this is a societal choice. Quebecers care about the environment. That is their choice as a society.

Today, I am proud to stand up for Quebecers and tell the Liberal government that, once more, this bill is too little and too late. The government is not doing enough. As usual, there is no money. But the scandals that have been unfolding in the last few weeks have shown that there is always money for friends of the government and contributions to the Liberal Party. There is always plenty of money for that.

In this bill, we should have told our farmers that if they want to use natural and organic pesticides, we will help them with tax credits, incentives and research money. But there is none of that in the bill.

Once again the people of Quebec made a collective choice, which is not reflected in this bill. Quebec is one step ahead of the rest of Canada, and this bill is holding us back. Our farmers would be ready to receive funds and develop natural fertilizer and organic farming. However, the federal government has chosen not to go that far. Once again, a large part of Canada, Quebec, which represents 25% of the country's population, is being penalized by this bill. This legislation does not go far enough and does not meet the expectations of the people of Quebec.

This is always hard to accept. The fact remains that Quebecers pay 25% of all the income tax collected by Canada. We pay our share in this Canadian system, which is far more profitable for the federal government. Under the Constitution, the federal government is not accountable to anyone for its spending. The federal level does not take care of health, education and transportation.

We have seen what happens; we are trying to get infrastructure programs to help provincial governments reach their goals and give our constituents from all over Quebec a good road system. they made promises, but there are no funds here at the federal level.

Few people blame the federal government because it always acts like a rescuer in all these situations. The terrible part about how Canada is organized is that the federal government has no responsibility whatsoever regarding the true problems of the people.

The federal government is not responsible for health, education, transportation and agriculture. So the federal government passes legislation—on pesticides, in this case—but does not invest money to help producers convert to organic agriculture, to the use of natural or biological pesticides, which, like everything else, always cost more. In the early stages, it means more research.

But no. The federal government is involved with big business, major pesticide sellers, major chemical companies that go and get their resources throughout the world and that sometimes make people work for paltry salaries, to get a better return on their operations and to sell their products here to our producers.

They are often products that are processed or made in countries where these companies use children, cheap labour and women. They take advantage of the situation and, basically, exploit people in other countries to sell to us chemical products that are also harmful to our health.

The amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois were very realistic. Finally, we want the government to be able to provide funding through this legislation. I repeat, I am pleased to repeat the standing committee's recommendations, which are very realistic: that the government develop a policy on organic farming. Such a policy should include tax incentives, a transitional income support plan and technical support for farmers.

It is simple. This simply means that farmers using chemical products and pesticides will have to incur costs in order to convert to natural and biological pesticides. They may have to incur losses. A certain balance might not have been reached. Let us compensate those farmers and we will see that things will go well.

We will start a green revolution, as Quebecers want. It is in the image of Quebec. It would be very beneficial for the rest of Canada if they converted to the image Quebec is now projecting, that is being more focused on the environment and the protection of our children.

Finally, everything we do and every decision we make, I hope we are doing for our children and our children's children. We are doing it for our posterity not for ourselves. I hope we will have a little vision.

This is a bill introduced by the federal Liberals who lack vision and will leave nothing to our children and our children's children.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak today to Bill C-53, the Pest Control Products Act.

I would like to start my speech by congratulating my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who made a point of speaking up for Quebecers at the standing committee on the environment, which reviewed the bill.

I will start by asking a question the committee must have asked itself: Do pesticides have harmful effects on health? We live in an era where we are faced with diseases, we all know it, and the problems our health care systems across Quebec and even Canada must deal with regarding an aging population that is living better and longer, but that suffers from diseases too.

We are faced with diseases such as cancer which wre not common half a century ago. It has now become a plague that we are trying to fight with every conceivable research program and other means. We need to ask ourselves questions. When a disease appears we must always try to find out what causes this disease.

I do not want to blame pesticides alone, but we must understand that the use of products harmful to health has resulted in contamination. Cancer causing agents have been found near facilities. It happened recently in the Atlantic provinces.

We have changed our attitude regarding the massive use of pesticides for field crops. Medical studies have been carried out to see whether groundwater was contaminated, and whether there was an increase in the number of cancer cases in some areas. Some comparisons were made, and it was found pesticides were used on an industrial scale on field crops. All this raises questions. Whose fault is it? Who should be blamed? Has a culprit been found?

This is not the purpose of my speech today. However, it is certain that pesticides have harmful effects on health. The question is settled. Witnesses were heard by the committee, positions were taken and today we have Bill C-53, which, again, is unfinished.

We heard from witnesses, and I am going to share with those listening the recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I would like us to read them together. Those who listened to my learned colleagues all afternoon, and at other times since the beginning of debate on this bill, have surely understood that the government, in order to protect a segment of the industry, is introducing a bill which does not go as far as the authors of studies and analyses would like.

I am going to cite the recommendations of the standing committee, which went as follows.

We would have liked the new Pest Control Products Act to establish human health and the environment as priorities by creating databases on the sale of pesticides, their adverse effects, and alternatives to pesticides.

We wanted pesticides used for cosmetic purposes, those we use on our own lawns, eliminated over the next five years.

Earlier, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot told the House that the pesticide industry is a very lucrative one, with sales of $1.4 billion. As we speak, one out of every two lawns in Quebec is being treated with pesticides to eliminate pests, as our colleague would say.

I went through this with my lawn. I have not used pesticides for four years, and I have never had so many dandelions. Members can laugh, but I eliminated them just four years ago with pesticides. Now, I have stopped using pesticides, but I have never had so many dandelions. But that is fine.

My neighbours find it a bit discouraging. But I am not doing anything about them. I used to use pesticides and I had no dandelions at all. Now, I have the lawn with the most.

So there is something in pesticides. When I do not use them, all the dandelions in the neighbourhood end up on my lawn.

Obviously, I have decided not to use pesticides any more. You will have understood that this is fine by me. But my neighbours are a bit discouraged. I am trying to convince them not to use pesticides. When they see my lawn, they obviously have a few little problems.

There is a hard reality behind this little anecdote. Obviously, when we use chemical products, we change the course of nature. That was the point of my story.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague is taking part in this debate on Bill C-53 for a very simple reason. You will quickly understand why.

We have dealt with various aspects of this bill throughout our discussions, but the agricultural aspect as opposed to pesticides has hardly come up. My colleague, who worked for many years for the Union des producteurs agricoles, is in a better position than anyone to really understand the important link between pesticides and agriculture.

He also took the opportunity to remind the House that we have moved and tried to put through a number of amendments in committee. We did not move a hundred amendments or so, but we moved amendments that we thought were relevant. This is the difference between wanting to be constructive and wanting to hold up the process.

We only moved about 10 amendments that we felt were relevant, but the government refused to adopt these proposals by the Bloc Quebecois. The Liberal bulldozer went into action, and our proposals were rejected.

What did we propose? We proposed a deadline for the re-evaluation of pesticides already available on the market. There is no sense in taking 10 years to complete this re-evaluation. Not only does this create uncertainty for the pesticide industry, but it also create uncertainty for environmental protection and public health, in the sense that people cannot know in the short term what the impact is and whether the products are safe.

We asked that the bill provide for deadlines for the re-evaluation of products already available on the market. We also asked that the precautionary principle be included right in the preamble of the bill.

I am aware that a number of parties in the House do not agree with our proposals. I know, however, that the Conservative Party and the NDP do agree with these proposals.

We believe that Canada must be consistent not only internationally but also nationally, in its own legislation. Canada cannot sign international conventions dealing with the environment, like the Rio convention, where the precautionary principle is recognized, and then refuse to include this principle in its own bill even though the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that the government had to include this principle in the preamble if it wanted to honour its international commitments concerning the environment. But the government refuses to do so.

Finally, we have proposed an organic farming program, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say on that issue. We know that, in Europe, there are programs under which a number of financial incentives can be given to farmers who decide to eliminate the use of pesticides on farmland.

I would like to hear what my colleague, who is an expert on farming and who knows about the impact of pesticide use, thinks about that. I would like to have his opinion on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-53, which is aimed at protecting human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.

By way of an introduction, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his excellent job in raising the awareness not only of his own Bloc Quebecois caucus, but also of the public at large. I congratulate him not only for his work on this bill dealing with the proper use of pesticides, not only for his major concern for organic farming for instance, but also for his interest in anything having to do with the environment. He is becoming an expert like no one else in this parliament.

It was high time the federal government took action in its jurisdiction. Indeed, pest control is an area of shared jurisdiction, the federal government having certain powers, specifically with respect to registration and the safe use of pesticides.

This act, which had become obsolete, outdated and criticized by just about everybody, should have been reviewed at least 25 years ago. We are talking about everything that has to do with pesticide use. Naturally, it was not criticized by those who sell pesticides; I believe the old legislation served them well these past few years. Updating this act was long overdue, especially since, for the past 25 years, a lot of scientific research has been carried out on the dangers of uncontrolled use of certain pesticides. This often resulted in the outright ban of products found to be dangerous, particularly in the United States, where more stringent controls of pesticide use were imposed in the early 1980s.

I recall that, these past few years, whenever pesticides were withdrawn in Canada, it was because the United States had carried out the necessary research, with the proper resources, in order to review the past registration of a given pesticide. They would come to the conclusion that given the state of research at the time, the pesticide in question was now deemed a hazard to human health. Canada benefited from the resources the United States has been investing for a long time in the protection of human health.

Talking about research, we talk primarily about what was done over the last few years, which has demonstrated beyond any doubt the link, sometimes a direct one, between the use of pesticides and certain conditions that develop over time, such as allergies in young children. Children are more sensitive to pesticides than adults. They also play merrily outside in the summer, precisely on the grass made so perfectly green by the use of pesticides, and easily develop allergies. Researchers link certain cases of cancer to the use of pesticides.

Thus this becomes a serious issue. It calls for a tightening of controls, notably through this legislation which, incidentally, will be supported by the Bloc Quebecois. However, we would have liked the bill to go much further, particularly with regard to alternatives to chemicals currently used. However we will come back to that at the end of this demonstration.

As I was saying, research has been developed, which established a link between illnesses developing over time, such as allergies and even cancer, and the use of pesticides. However, we have not yet reached the point where doctors receive training adequate enough to make a link between certain symptoms of these illnesses or short term symptoms associated with pesticide use, and the health of children and even that of adults. Often we think that an indigestion is simply an indigestion. The fact is, however, if we took a closer look at what the child visiting the doctor for some indigestion had been doing, we would realize that he had likely been playing on grass that had just been sprayed with pesticides to prevent it from yellowing or from being taken over by dandelions or other pests.

We should not only pay special attention to the use of pesticides, but also consider the fact that this industry is dominated by big players, essentially transnational corporations which control the entire agricultural production in the world. They control just about everything.

Companies have challenged bylaws passed recently by municipalities to ban the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in their jurisdictions.

Take for example companies like ChemLawn or Spray Tech, which specialize in massive chemical spraying of lawns. They tried to challenge the jurisdiction of municipalities and their authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their jurisdictions. They even went to the supreme court, but they lost. When I learned that they had lost at all three judicial levels, I was very pleased, because there is big money behind pesticide use.

We are talking about two companies in particular, namely ChemLawn and Spray Tech, but we should not forget those that supply their inputs, the likes of Monsanto and CIL.

If there are businesses that take advantage of people and of this planet, they are the ones, along with other similar transnational companies. Why do they take advantage of the planet and of people who live on it to the point of devastating complete regions? Let me explain briefly.

They have complete control, from the seeds to the finished product. They produce genetically modified seeds for crops of wheat, soya beans, rapeseed and canola. The genetic modifications make the use of the pesticides produced by these companies essential. Therefore, the whole world is dependent on their genetically modified products and the pesticides that go along with them.

If you use Monsanto seeds but not the Monsanto pesticides, your crop will not yield as much or could even be completely devastated by pests.

Internationally, farmers and peasants in Africa and Europe are at the mercy of these companies controlling the agrifood industry upstream and downstream.

Those large companies manufacturing pesticides and seeds to match are so destructive that they were the cause of the devastation observed in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. Efforts to boost several regional economies through agriculture, which represents on average 80% of the GDP of these countries, except for South Africa, were a failure. This initiative was a failure because the only seeds available on the world market were genetically modified seeds. Following harvest, it was impossible to keep any portion of the crop to seed the next crop, because the seeds must be used together with the pesticides produced by CIL or Monsanto. Besides, they are not reproducible.

Agriculture is a very simple thing. For centuries, it has been the result of nature's miracles and human intelligence. For planting, one sows seeds or plants and transplants seedlings. Once they have grown, you set some aside. This is what people have been doing from time immemorial. Part of the crop is set aside to be used for seeds the following crop year.

It is no longer possible to do that because these big companies have control over seeds, pesticides and all the rest.

Do not think that having allowed the pesticides control and registration legislation to become outdated did not help these companies. It served them very well because once pesticides were registered, 25 years ago, there was no reason to be concerned. As a matter of fact, after registering products once, the government did not re-evaluate them. This allowed producers to sleep tight, do research to improve certain aspects of their products, while knowing that with such an outdated legislation, they had nothing to fear in Canada.

Coming back to pesticides used in Canada, this is a large market. Sales total $1.4 billion a year. In Quebec, since the late 1970s, there has been a massive increase in the use of pesticides because of the enthusiasm for green lawns free of pests and undesirable plants, like dandelions—I wonder why people do not like them; they are so nice.

During the 1990s alone, over a five-year period, I believe it was from 1992 to 1996, there was a 60% increase in the use of pesticides in ornamental horticulture.

In Montreal alone, 300 kilos of pesticides are used in parks, in places where children play. Children develop allergies and they can also develop cancer. Three hundred kilos of this junk is used in parks where our children play.

This reform was long overdue, but it does not go far enough. We congratulate the government for at least dusting off the old act. However, when one wants to do a good cleaning job, one has to do more than dust; one must also do some polishing. If the legislation can be improved, it is a good opportunity to do so. The government could have gone much further in this modernization of the pesticide registration legislation.

Had the government heeded the recommendations of my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who is becoming an expert on this issue and on the environment in general, someone with convictions who is working hard to bring the government to keep its word on the Kyoto agreements, for example, perhaps we would have had an act worthy of its title, true legislation dealing with pest control, but pest control with no risk to human health and not interfering with the protection of animals and plants.

But no. As usual, the government does things grudginly. It does them in stages and says “We will try this first; we will remove the dust and then, in two or three years, we will pick it up”. We sometimes wonder whether Liberal legislators know how to clean up.

When one picks up the dust, one can say that the housework is done. However, as long as one leaves it there, the housework is not done. And the government is leaving the dust in this bill, when it could have gone much further. Even if it had used the U.S. legislation as a model, it would have been a clear improvement, compared to the bill before us.

Why did the government not listen to my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, when he suggested a data bank on alternatives to current pesticides?

There are natural pesticides in use in the United States and also in a part of Europe. They are not harmful to human health and, if they are used wisely, they do not represent a threat to the environment. Why did the government not give the example with this bill?

A government that claims to take the environment and health seriously and that keeps talking about its so-called deep convictions has introduced an incomplete bill. Why did it not create this bank? Why, also, did it not increase research on alternatives?

In this regard, even though there are natural pesticides, there is a lack of research on their large scale use, to ensure that producers in Quebec and Canada can get results and be as competitive as the United States or Europe.

Why did the government not increase significantly the resources allocated to research and to enforcement of the modernized version of the act? My colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie was pointing out to me that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in 1999 in which she identified serious problems that could have guided the government in drafting this bill.

For example, the report refers to the lack of re-evaluation programs. This bill provides for a certain degree of re-evaluation of registered pesticides, but we think that it is not enough. The bill does not go far enough in that area.

The report said that Canada was lagging way behind other countries throughout the world, not only with regard to pesticide registration, but also with regard to spending for the implementation of standards and regulations to protect human health as well as animals and plants. Agriculture means plants, animals and humans. We must find the right balance between protection, yield and the health of users.

The commissioner said that Canada lagged far behind in terms of the resources for the enforcement of provisions on the use of pesticides and their re-evaluation. No resources worth mentioning were added in the bill. A major part is missing, and the bill does not fill the gaps mentioned by the environmental commissioner.

Clear processes are also lacking. Did the bill settle the issue of certification, of re-evaluation and so on? Does the government know where it is going with this bill? I do think so.

I see my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who is nodding. There is a lack of clear processes for things like certification and the time it can take. In the United States, it is clear. A product is certified within a year. There is no fuss.

Indirectly, we are dealing not only with human health, but also with the profitability of the agricultural sector. For example, there are consequences if we cannot certify biological control agents. It would be best to be able to certify them for their use in this country. If our competitors in the U.S., for example, use biological control agents that are as cost effective as chemical pesticides used in this country, or more cost effective, we will be at a disadvantage. Since we are a net exporter of farm products, it is very much to our advantage to keep our competitive edge.

We are really disappointed with the registration process. We would have liked a much faster process, access to an alternative products databank and access to a much more efficient model, like the one that has been adopted in the United States for example, which does not threaten, as is the case here, human health and competitiveness in the agricultural sector.

We would have supported this bill with a lot more enthusiasm. However, we will support it anyway. As my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie mentioned more than once in his speeches on the protection of the environment and human health, it is a good start. We hope that the government will speed things up to further improve this area of shared jurisdiction, that is the registration of pesticides and the search for alternatives.

I wonder why the government acts like this for all its bills. In the more or less eight years that we have been here, we have made all sorts of proposals with respect to the criminal code. The government was rather hesitant and came back three years later with other amendments to the criminal code. Why did it not accept the Bloc Quebecois' recommendations which, in the case of pesticides, put forward a full plan for a real pesticide control bill promoting health protection. There again, we will keep on working to convince the government, because it has a hard time understanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleague for his excellent speech. He obviously has a good knowledge of the pesticide issue in Canada. He made a good assessment of Bill C-53.

I would like to inform him, if he does not already know, that a discussion group on pesticides was set up in Quebec. That group, known as the Cousineau group, met with over 50 people and organizations to reflect on this issue.

One of the requests that this Quebec group made to the federal government concerned the whole issue of speeding up the registration process for biopesticides.

We know that only 30 biopesticides are currently available on the Canadian market, as compared to over 150 in the United States. Consequently, contractors in ornamental horticulture have too few alternatives available to them.

Does the member think that the government should have included in its bill provisions to expedite the registration of biopesticides, as requested by the Cousineau group in Quebec, so that we can not only prohibit the use of pesticides, but also develop in Canada organic products and alternative methods for pest control? Does he not think that this bill should have contained provisions to speed up the registration process for biopesticides in Canada?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this important debate, the third reading of an act to replace the Pest Control Products Act which dates back to 1969.

The stated objective of the legislation is to protect the health of Canadians from the ill effects of pesticides and to protect the environment at the same time. Both are laudable goals and we support them. However we cannot support the bill because we do not believe that the bill succeeds in setting out what it proposes to do.

This legislation has been a long time in coming. The existing Pest Control Products Act dates back to 1969. A great deal has changed since then. The Liberal government promised this legislation in its first term of office in 1993 but it has taken nearly a decade to get from there to here. We acknowledge that the bill is a significant improvement over the 1969 legislation.

It would use modern risk assessment practices, taking into account the consideration of vulnerable populations, such as children. It would require mandatory re-evaluation of pesticides, some of which have been around for decades without the benefit of re-evaluation. It would increase public participation in the decision making process and would make mandatory the reporting of adverse effects.

However as the lead critic for our caucus, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and our environmental critic, the member for Windsor—St. Clair, have both pointed out, the bill does leave a great deal to be desired.

We all realize that there are trade-offs to be made between the need we currently have for using pesticides to produce food on the one hand and the health of Canadians on the other. When it comes to those trade-offs it is the health of Canadians that must take precedence and priority. That is why we are concerned that there is no precautionary principle in this legislation. A precautionary principle would ensure that the health of Canadians is our overriding and major concern. The bill does not enshrine this principle. We find this strange because the basic premise of the bill is to protect the health of Canadians from the adverse effects of pesticides.

Another area of disappointment in Bill C-53 is that it does not adequately address pollution prevention or reduction, and the reduction in the use of pesticides. In other areas the legislation is vague and we see that far too many details would be left to regulations. I speak for example of the details in timelines for the process of re-evaluation of pesticides.

As my colleagues have pointed out earlier in the debate there is nothing in the bill to indicate that the government wants to or has plans for reducing our overall reliance on pesticides.

I have the privilege of representing a Saskatchewan constituency, one that has a mix of urban and rural communities and individuals. I want to talk briefly about some of the trade-offs that must be made in an industrial society where people produce goods and market products for others to enjoy. I want to talk about the method for registering pesticides and of re-evaluating them. This is a task that does fall to the Pest Management Review Agency, the PMRA.

A report was prepared by the committee on environment and sustainable development in May 2000. I know that everyone in the House agrees that the chair of that committee on environment and sustainable development has sterling credentials as a strong environmentalist.

The report stated clearly that it intended to make the protection of human health and the environment the absolute priority in pest management decisions with a special emphasis on the protection of children and other vulnerable populations. This accords very closely with the position of our party in this area and with the position outlined in this debate earlier by my colleagues.

The environment committee indicated that the precautionary principle must be the approach used in all decision making, again mirroring the policy of our party. The committee chair expressed his hope that Canadians would move toward organic agriculture even while acknowledging that this will be a long term project.

On that score, the recent 2001 census is interesting when it comes to agriculture. It indicates that more than 2,200 Canadian farms produce at least one category of certified organic agricultural products. These 2,200 organic farms represent only about 1% of farms, but there is no question that the number of organic farms is growing faster than any other type of farming in the country. I am pleased to report that more than 700, almost one-third of those 2,200 farms, are in the province of Saskatchewan and growth is continuing at a great rate.

In its report the environment committee pointed out that the European Union has also experienced remarkable growth in organic agriculture. Even there the total number of organic farms is only in the range of 2% of all the farms in Europe.

I want to make the point that the government and the federal department of agriculture have not made it a priority to assist in the development of organic agriculture. I believe that is a mistake. There has been a very modest amount of money given recently by the department of agriculture, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600,000, for the development of organic agriculture. This amount is not to be sneezed at, but it is a very minute amount in comparison to the amount of money available for the study of agriculture biotechnology.

We will be using pesticides to produce products for the foreseeable future. I refer again to the chair of the environment committee because in the preface to his report last May the chair said “our reliance on pesticides in agriculture is so overwhelming, it would be impossible for us to abandon their use in the short term”.

It then becomes crucially important that we have a safe and transparent process for the registration and evaluation of pesticides and those tasks fall to the pest management review agency, the PMRA. When this organization was created as a standalone agency, it was supposed to streamline the process of getting new pesticides onto the market and getting old and untested ones reviewed and cancelled if necessary. It has not worked out that way and criticism comes from all sides and all quarters.

When it comes to the PMRA there is a rare unanimity among industry groups, environmentalists, health groups and legislators. That unanimity is that the pest management review agency in Canada lags well behind its U.S. counterpart in approving newer, safer chemicals that could allow older and more hazardous products to be removed from the market.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I am a member, discussed this very matter at some length this year during our deliberations. In a report on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, one of the four recommendations was that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provide at least $1 million a year in funding for a research and analysis program similar to the IR4 in the United States. This was to be developed in co-operation with agricultural stakeholders to generate or complete the necessary data for the approval of new minor use products or to expand the use of previously approved products.

That was a significant recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to deal with the minor use policy of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm groups wrote to the health minister regarding Bill C-53 about a month ago. In a letter to the hon. Minister of Health, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Bob Friesen, indicated that on timelines the Canadian Federation of Agriculture recommended that product registrations be included in the legislation or applicable regulations should be referred to therein in order to create greater accountability of the PMRA's performance and management regarding submissions.

The federation also had recommendations on the auditor general's requirement for the agency's financial statements, information about the agency's performance with respect to the objectives established in the corporate business plan and a summary statement of the assessment by the Auditor General of Canada of the fairness and reliability of the information. There has been some concern.

The CFA went on to say that there is no mention of minor use in the legislation and that too is of concern. The CFA and others are insisting that farmers need faster access to newer and lower risk chemicals. The CFA stresses that product registrations have to be dealt with in a more timely manner. We in this caucus certainly agree with that observation.

For one reason or another the PMRA has not been up to its task. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food found the problem so vexing that it held hearings and wrote a report. I have already alluded to recommendation No. 3 in the report. It was a report on the performance of the PMRA from the perspective of farmers and the competitiveness or lack thereof.

The agriculture committee chose to send a strong message to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency that improvements to its management and registration process were crucial and overdue. We have to ask why the PMRA has not performed better than it has. Part of the problem is the conflicting mandate. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is charged with protecting human health and the environment while at the same time supporting the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture, forestry and other industries. In this latter role there is pressure on the PMRA to promote the use of pesticides.

These, we submit, are conflicting interests. As well, there appears to be a corporate culture at the PMRA that does not promote transparency in decision making. We submit that transparency is extremely important in order to guard the health of Canadians and the environment.

Regrettably, the bill before us does nothing new to clarify the statutory responsibilities of the PMRA. That is a serious concern.

We have looked at Bill C-53. We certainly concede that it is an improvement over the situation that has existed under the old legislation that was passed in 1969 called the Pest Control Products Act. We have to say in all sincerity that we are disappointed because the government had a golden opportunity to fix the process of registering and reviewing pesticides in a way that would set a clear priority on protecting the health of Canadians and at the same time protecting the environment. The government had the opportunity to establish a review process that was both transparent and efficacious but somehow it managed to fail on both fronts.

The legislation has been promised for nearly 10 years. The former Minister of Health promised legislation in the fall of 2001. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development produced a study in May 2000 on the management and use of pesticides, including an examination of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

The primary objective of Bill C-53 as we understand it is the protection of human health and the environment. It is much stronger than the current legislation which must balance health and environmental concerns against those of industry. Some of the key provisions that will do this are the use of modern risk assessment practices, that is, consideration of vulnerable populations such as children, and of aggregate exposure and cumulative effects; mandatory re-evaluation of pesticides; increased public participation in the decision making process; mandatory reporting of adverse effects; and mandatory material safety data sheets in workplaces where pesticides are used or manufactured.

Bill C-53 does not adequately address pollution prevention and reduction in the use of pesticides. There is nothing to indicate that the government is seeking to reduce overall reliance on them.

There are concerns that the legislation is too vague and I hope I have covered that. Much of the details will be left to regulations, including details and a timeline for the re-evaluation process, types of tests used in risk assessment, et cetera.

The precautionary principle, which is very important, is not enshrined as one of the principles of the act. This is an extreme deficiency in our opinion.

There is a failure in the act to ban the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes; the lack of a fast track registration process for lower risk or minor use products; a failure to reduce the number of pesticides being used, to reduce the use of pesticides in general and to prevent the most harmful pesticides from being registered; and a failure to require labelling of all toxic formulants, contaminants or micro-contaminants.

The mandate of the PMRA is not set out in the legislation. Unfortunately there is a failure to commit money for research on the long term effects of pesticides, especially on vulnerable groups like our children, and for public education about the dangers of pesticides and for support of alternatives.

In conclusion, the proposed legislation is an improvement. It is still flawed. Much of it is based on U.S. standards which will bring some of our standards up, but we will still be far behind countries in the European Union.

Harmonization may have dangerous effects in the long term. Given the scientific evidence that exists, the bill could have and should have been much stronger in the government's efforts to protect both human health and the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie's intervention to congratulate him once more for the great work that he has done on Bill C-53. He has done a remarkable job representing my party, the Bloc Quebecois, and I would like to pay tribute to him for that.

As my colleague said, we have to recognize that this government does speak from both sides of it mouth. On the international scene, it is boastful but when the time comes to pass legislation, it backs off. And what are we presented with? Nothing but an incomplete bill, when what we needed was a super bill. What is the government doing? I do not dare repeat the phrase we use in my part of the country because it would be declared unparliamentary.

The government just turned around and said “You know, we can pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians and Quebecers; they will not notice a thing. But on the international scene, we have to look good”.

These are people with an empty shell. This government is nothing but an empty shell. It looks good wrapped in cellophane, but when you unwrap it, you find a lot of incomplete things.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you said, before question period, my colleague from Fundy—Royal asked me what I thought about the government not including the precautionary principle in Bill C-53.

It is a serious mistake on the part of the Minister of Health. The precautionary principle is an essential component that should have been included in the bill's preamble. It would have been the basis for all the provisions contained in Bill C-53.

Anyone who reads this bill can see that the minister did not do her homework properly. It is very disappointing to see that, because the bill was supposed to give us indispensable tools to protect our health and our environment.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a reference to a deadline made by the hon. member regarding this issue, which of course is a serious issue and I am not diminishing the importance of it. He says to buttress his argument that there is no deadline in this and it is based on the consideration which he refers to as forthwith.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is there, during the course of his presentation the hon. member might have forgotten one of the original propositions he raised in the House. It stated that it was in the chief actuary's opinion to trigger the mechanism of issuing this letter, or note which was the expression the hon. member used a while ago. I do not know, nor do I suggest the House knows yet whether the chief actuary has given such an opinion at this time.

I have asked officials to verify and to report to me. I will report to the House as early as possible. Hopefully later this day I would be able obtain that information for the benefit not only of the Speaker but of course for the benefit of all hon. members. However I do think that the triggering mechanism, which the hon. member admitted is there, is the chief actuary's opinion.

I would undertake to verify if he has given such an opinion and what the opinion is. If the chief actuary has given an opinion that in fact the triggering mechanism does not apply, the point of course is not valid. If he has not given an opinion at all, it is not valid either because the whole argument is based on the chief actuary providing that opinion, and that is the contention of the hon. member who raised the proposition in the House.

Perhaps I can assist the House and undertake that if, by the time we complete consideration of the bill now before the House, I have not obtained the information to be able to rise and give further explanation to hon. members, I would then call the other bill that is on the order paper instead, namely, Bill C-55, and call Bill C-58 at a later time, perhaps tomorrow. That would satisfy the hon. member because the proposition is not before the House given that the bill has not been called for debate and I could delay perhaps for a little while.

That being said, if anytime between now and the completion of the debate on the other bill, Bill C-53, I could rise on a point of order and give further explanation to the House, I would do so at that time.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that many members would have suggestions about the government business over the next few days. However, in the absence of hearing all that, I will inform the House of the following.

We will continue this afternoon tomorrow with the following: Bill C-53, the pesticide legislation, to be followed by Bill C-58, the Canada pension plan investment board bill and any time remaining on Bill C-55, the public safety bill.

On Monday we will begin with a motion by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to refer to committee before second reading the bill on first nations governance that he will introducing tomorrow, notice of which is already on the order paper. We would then turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-54, respecting sports. We would then turn to the specific claims bill introduced earlier today and any business left from this week, that is the bills I named a moment ago.

We would also like to debate report stage and third reading hopefully of Bill C-48, the copyright legislation and, subject to some progress, I would also like to resume consideration at second reading of Bill C-57, the nuclear safety bill.

In addition, it would be the wish of the government to dispose of the motion to establish a special joint committee to review proposals made concerning the code of conduct for parliamentarians.

This is the list of legislation that I would like to see completed over the next several days.

Pest Control Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Champlain.

I hope no lobby is powerful enough to prevent the health minister from taking action to protect health and the environment. If such a lobby does exist and she is influenced by it, I think she has a big problem. I think it would be a big problem, and I hope it is not true.

Moreover, I think that in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, a local business has indeed come up with a natural product for spraying on grass for cosmetic purposes. Its product was registered by Quebec authorities. Right now this new business is marketing its product and is urging people to use it.

Some research has been conducted, and products are now available to replace pesticides. I urge Quebec municipalities to make bylaws banning the use of pesticides. I think that they will have to assume this responsibility to make up for what the minister has failed to do with Bill C-53.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part to the third reading 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.

At the outset, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, for the excellent work he did throughout the study of this bill and also congratulate several opposition colleagues for putting their arguments so forcefully and, by so doing, getting the health minister, who introduced the bill, to really protect human health by including the precautionary principle in the bill.

It must be recognized, as my colleague from Richmond--Arthabaska said earlier this afternoon, that this bill is cobbled together, or leaning on crutches, if I can put it that way. Now, when people move around on crutches, they often go hobbling along, unsure of their footing, and move cautiously to protect themselves. This is the case of the bill as it now stands.

With this bill, we will never be able to meet the expectations raised by the study by the former environment committee on the impact of pesticides on the health of children, women, pregnant women, as well as on the health of vulnerable people like seniors or people who are in poor health, in particular those with asthma.

The former committee did the work and produced an excellent report under the leadership of the Liberal member for Davenport. I am pleased to say it, because he did a good job. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis said, I believe this was the best report tabled in the House in many years.

The health minister had everything she needed to finally draft legislation that would allow us to go forward. However, today, even if my colleagues from the opposition, the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie and myself, believe that there are many flaws in this bill, we will support it even if it is cobbled together, leaning on crutches and represents a feeble and uncertain step forward.

This is unfortunate, because since 1969, we have not taken the necessary steps to bring about environmental changes adapted to today's and tomorrow's needs.

I do not know what kept the health minister from adopting this approach, but it is certainly sad to discover that fact in the House today. We are convinced that the government had a good momentum at first. We went to committee hearings and the government adopted broad principles. However, the more the committee sat and the more we debated, the government backed down. This is unfortunate, because the government had everything it needed to act. I do not know what made it back down.

Today, I can say that the new minister of the environment for Quebec, André Boisclair, decided to act on pesticides. He created a committee, which made some recommendations, and he said he would eliminate the use of pesticides on lawns for cosmetic purposes.

That is what this report suggested to the health minister. However, she was not there. Fortunately, this is legislation concerning a jurisdiction shared by the federal government and the provinces. I must admit that, for once, the bill does not infringe upon provincial jurisdiction. It is important to point this out. In fact, the provinces will have the opportunity to act in their own area. However, the federal government should have taken steps to make its own area ironclad and should have said “we are moving in a new direction”.

Let us just talk about the PMRA. The government keeps saying that the basic principle of the PMRA should be the regulation of pest control, with the sole objective of protecting health and the environment. However, we know that, since 1965, with the Pest Control Products Act, which controls registration, marketing and standards on product labelling, there are 6,000 products, and the government refuses, under the new Bill C-53, to ensure that all these products that were registered before 1965 are re-evaluated. No deadline is set. We know that today, as the Canadian Alliance member was saying, there might be products that are less harmful to the environment and human health. They cannot be registered because all the other products must currently be re-evaluated and the government has not established a deadline. The fact that there is no deadline in this bill is a major shortcoming.

This bill also has very serious shortcomings regarding the registration process. Nowhere in this bill it says that the PMRA will expedite the registration process. This is very important. Some people came to testify on this during our study on pesticides and told us “We would really want to act, but products that are very harmful to the environment are still on the list. Our hands are tied”. As we can see, these products are very harmful to health.

The bill does not propose alternatives to current pesticides either, as recommended by all the reports, focus groups and the standing committee on the environment.

The Minister of Health should have acted to ensure that, finally, Canada has legislation based on the principle of human health. In the report from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice”, we stated very good reasons for taking action with regard to the vulnerability of children.

Most of the public health and environmental protection organizations received by the Committee, in particular the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Ontario College of Family Physicians, denounced the Canadian pesticide management system because it does not specifically address the vulnerability of children, and emphasized the importance of correcting this deficiency. In the view of the Canadian Institute of Child Health, and I quote:

Most regulations and policies are designed to protect adults and refer to the healthy 70-kilogram male, and not the 7-kilogram child.

May I remind members that, in the summertime, when children go outside to play when the weather is nice, when it is not raining—unlike the weather we had for most of this week— they come in contact with people's lawns. When pesticides are used, it is the children who come in close contact with these very harmful products who are the most vulnerable.

We know that children are in close contact with pesticides; credible studies prove it. The Minister of Health should come to the defence of Canadians' health. She had the authority to prohibit, in the bill, within three years, the cosmetic use of pesticides. She did not do so, even though we had credible studies showing that there has been a spectacular increase in asthma and allergies over the last few years.

Also, statistics show that in Quebec and Canada women have fewer children for reasons directly linked to the environment. We know how pleasant it is to have children and grandchildren. I am a grandmother and it makes me very happy. Our children are our future. Studies show that everything in the environment has a direct impact on the health of pregnant women. The minister was given reports showing the link between health and pesticides and hazardous products, but she did nothing about it.

I am thinking that maybe this bill should not have been entrusted to the Department of the Environment. The government introduced the bill, put forward some proposals, rejected every single amendment the Bloc Quebecois introduced regarding registration and restricting the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, and to accelerate the registration process and the review of the current list. The government rejected all these amendments and did not include the precautionary principle, which should have been the basis of this bill.

This bill is an unfinished piece of work. Some people might like to buy unfinished pieces of work. Health and the environment are too important to allow just anyone to play around with concepts that are so important for the people we serve.

We have to say that the bill before us today is unfinished. People are way ahead of the minister and her bill. People are attuned to the environment.

In 1991, the municipality of Hudson in Quebec introduced a bylaw banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. It is now 2002, and the minister has not reached that point yet. Does that mean that she has forgotten an important step in the evolution of the municipalities and provinces that are directly affected by bills that do not go far enough?

I think that she has not finished her homework. When we visit our ridings, we meet a lot of people who are very attuned to the environment. How many seniors, parents, children and young people tell us “Why is nothing being done at the federal level for the environment? Why is your legislation is so obsolete?

A short while ago, in my riding, I witnesseded a primary school pilot project promoting the environment.

I was amazed. These children were nine and ten years old. They were so attuned to the fact that the environment had to be central to their life. They knew that previous generations, their parents and their grand-parents' generations, were directly responsible for what is happening now in the environment because of what they did.

These children were aware of that. They told me and their parents that something had to be done, that corrective action had to be taken, that we had to go green to give people the feeling that the environment is both the alpha and the omega of life on our planet.

We have to admit that we have done things that have resulted in the elimination of a good part of our forests. Let us think about acid rain. Let us think about all the pollution we released into the atmosphere without a second thought. We were under the impression that everything was eternal and renewable.

When we know and think that something is renewable, at some point we have to face the facts and say “We must protect what we have. If we lose that, it will be very difficult to make up for lost time and for natural assets that have resulted from a certain way of doing things”.

In Bill C-53, the Minister of Health has greatly disappointed me. Being the Minister of Health, she should take the health of Canadians and Quebecers to heart. I see that she did not.

This is unfortunate because, what is more, she is a woman. Women are very much aware—we bear children and take care of them—of the fact that more and more children are very fragile and quite affected by their immediate environment. They suffer from a many allergies, have problems with asthma, sleeping disorders and are hyperactive.

This would have been a way to solve a lot ofhealth problems for children, pregnant women and the elderly. The population is aging. People can expect to live longer, but they are more and more fragile.

Instead of being sick for the rest of their lives, they must be allowed to lead a very good life, in a healthy environment that will allow them to be in contact with their children, to be healthy and to say “Life is beautiful. Perhaps we have been a little irresponsible, but today's laws will protect our young people, our children and, consequently, will protect us too”.

I would have liked to congratulate the minister, but I cannot. I say that she has taken a step forward, but I encourage her to go further and to speed things up so that we can finally have legislation that it is truly designed to protect health and the environment.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate this legislation to the foundational principles that were set forth by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the World Wildlife Fund with respect to how prospective legislation of this kind should be evaluated. I will run through the principles as set forth by these groups and look at the present legislation in that context.

The first and most important principle is that pesticide legislation must protect the most vulnerable among us. In other words, protecting the health of the most vulnerable populations must be the benchmark for the evaluation of any pesticide. For human beings this may be a child or a senior, whereas currently pesticides are evaluated based on risk to healthy adult males. For environmental protection it may be a fish, a bird or a tadpole, depending on the nature of the pesticide and its use. It is particularly important to ensure protection for the embryo and the young of all species whose reproductive and nervous systems are developing and most easily damaged.

In that regard at present, under the existing Pest Control Products Act, modern risk assessment methods are used but they are not incorporated in the law.

Under the proposed new pest control products act, PCPA, health evaluations of pesticide would take into account sensitivities of vulnerable groups such as children and seniors There would be extra protections for infants and children. In my view it still does not go far enough and does not reach, for example, the threshold of American legislation, as has been mentioned earlier in debate in this House.

Pesticide exposure is aggregated and includes exposure through food, water and pesticide use in homes and schools, and cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way are considered.

Principle number two stipulates that pesticides should be considered guilty until proven innocent. In other words, the responsibility needs to be, as it is not yet now, on the applicants to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that their pesticides will not cause harm to people and wildlife. Under the proposed legislation the onus would be on the applicant to demonstrate that these pesticides would not cause harm to people and wildlife and would not be on the public to bear the burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a chemical is safe.

Principle number three is the importance of reviewing existing pesticides regularly. Simply put, most pesticides in use today were developed and registered for use decades ago. New data about risks to health and the environment are emerging all the time. New proposed legislation now under consideration in the House must provide for regular reviews of pesticides in the light of new data.

I would like to make specific reference to the provisions for re-evaluations and special reviews, which would include re-evaluations of older pesticides that would be mandatory 15 years after the registration of the product. A request from the public could trigger a special review of a pesticide. If a pesticide registrant does not respond when information is requested for a re-evaluation or a special review, that pesticide's registration may be cancelled or amended, again putting the burden on the pesticide registrant or applicant.

The precautionary principle would be applied during re-evaluations and special reviews. That means where there are threats that a registered pesticide could cause serious damage it would not be necessary to await full scientific certainty to take cost effective measures. The principle was set down in the recent supreme court decision in these matters.

Principle number four would ensure reporting, monitoring and follow up for adverse effect. At present there is no formal requirement for reporting or monitoring the adverse effects from a pesticide's use. Without this data reviews are difficult to undertake. Under the proposed bill pesticide applicants and registrants would be obligated to report information on the adverse effects of a pesticide.

Principle number five is that one needs to automatically ban pesticides when critical health and environmental problems are identified. In other words pesticides should be automatically banned if they build up in the food chain or pose hazards to health and the environment.

The proposal for automatic bans of pesticides in my view does not go far enough in the bill. However, the bill would provide enhanced enforcement capability through clearly defined offences, increased powers of inspectors and higher maximum penalties. For example, importation of an unregistered product could lead to a maximum fine of $500,000 and three years imprisonment. Recklessly or wilfully causing harm to the environment or causing serious bodily harm would carry the maximum penalty under the act of $1 million or three years imprisonment.

Principle number six is that the cosmetic use of pesticides should be banned. In other words, pesticides used only for cosmetic purposes are not acceptable. This is an issue to which I have spoken in the House and which is of particular concern, among other things, to the constituents of my riding. Regrettably, Bill C-53 contains no prohibition on the cosmetic use of pesticides. If the precautionary principle were to be applied the cosmetic use of pesticides would be prohibited.

In this regard we should look to the province of Quebec which is moving toward reducing and gradually eliminating the cosmetic use of pesticides. We have municipal initiatives to that effect. A co-operative federal-provincial-municipal framework would be appropriate if it were unpinned by the precautionary principle.

Principle number seven states that we should not permit registration of pesticides when alternatives are available. The essence of Bill C-53's risk management approach is to prevent registration of products that would pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment and to manage the use of registered pesticides in a manner that would preclude unacceptable risks.

Principle number eight would ensure public participation in the regulatory system and public access to information on hazards and use. Canadians have a right to know what pesticides are being applied to the food they buy, to the parks they use and at their children's schools.

In this regard some important features of the legislation which would promote public participation include provisions for public comment prior to major decisions for full registration; access to information; support for pesticide registrations; an opportunity to request a review panel to re-examine major registration decisions; and an opportunity to request a special review of registrations. The documentation to be used as a basis for public consultation would contain a description of the product and its intended uses, a summary of the risk and value assessments, as well as the proposed decision and the rationale for it.

Principle number nine emphasizes the importance of education, awareness and support with respect to alternative and transition programs. In other words, the federal government should support the extension of education and research on alternatives to pesticide use. Farmers need support. Support for making the transition to pest management systems that reduce reliance on pesticides makes sense both ecologically and economically.

My hon. colleague also spoke to the issue when he was minister of the environment in Quebec where he introduced a legislative framework. That is the objective we should have in mind for this legislation as well.

Principle number 10 is that the precautionary principle should be enshrined throughout the bill. It is not at present. It is referenced only with regard to evaluation reviews and the like. However with regard to the supreme court decision and public policy in these matters, the precautionary principle should underpin the legislation as a whole and be read into it. I trust the courts would read this into it and incorporate it by reference throughout the legislation.

Regarding the oversight principle, there would now be a seven year parliamentary review. I would have agreed with the proposal that there be a five year review, but I am pleased there is at least some provision for oversight and review.

In conclusion, the legislation is an important first step. It incorporates some of the principles recommended by groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the World Wildlife Federation. However it does not go far enough. Bill C-53 deserves to be supported because it would address the important principles to which I have referred. However for the legislation to be effective regulations would need to be brought forward to give it specific powers of implementation. The PMRA should be given a statutory mandate. As I mentioned, the precautionary principle should underpin the legislation as a whole. It is at the core of public policy and how we can protect and evaluate such legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague of the Canadian Alliance on Bill C-53.

Like several other opposition members, the Canadian Alliance member is suggesting that this bill is a step forward. But it is not a big enough step, given the bill's purpose. The bill should address the whole issue of pesticides.

When pest control was discussed in the previous parliament, we submitted a brief, and several witnesses told us that the federal government should give money to the provinces to allow them to consider providing university training to help farmers make the transition to organic farming.

Would this proposal be agreeable to my colleague from the Canadian Alliance? At the beginning of his remarks, he told the House that a certain form of pesticide use was important for agriculture. Would it not be time to move to organic farming?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise and speak to third reading of Bill C-53, the pest control act. I know it is too late to make amendments to the bill but I hope to make some suggestions to which I hope the government will listen. Perhaps at some future date it will implement some of these suggestions and the positive changes we hope to see take place.

Unlike the debate earlier today in which the government found itself on the wrong side of an issue, the disability tax credit and having to defend its treatment of disabled persons, we find that this bill is politically correct in every way.

I think this bill is part of a trend. When I came to Ottawa, I was under the impression that bills would be written with a positive objective. It is surprising to me to see that a number of bills have been introduced with a negative objective.

The first one I came across was Bill C-15B, which was the animal rights legislation. It has a very strange definition in it where it defines animals as “any being that has the capacity to feel pain”. That is a very strange and negative way to define an animal. We could just as well have been defined animal as one that can feel excitement. It could have been defined either way. It was interesting that the government took a negative tact to define one of the major definitions in that bill.

When we read the primary objective of Bill C-53, once again we see that it has a negative tact of what it wants to do. It says that it is “in the national interest that the primary objective of the federal regulatory system be to prevent unacceptable risk to people and the environment from the use of pest control products”. It begins with the assumption that the bill needs to do something negative.

It is too late now to change the bill but the objective of the bill could have easily been to promote good health and environmental stewardship through the regulation of products which are used for controlling pests. That throws an entirely different flavour on the objective of the bill and its direction.

The perspective of the department is revealed in a large way by how it put the bill together. The objective sets the direction for how the bill will be enforced and how it will be applied. I have a lot of concerns about that. The words “prevent” rather than “promote” have been used . The words “stop“ rather than “provide” have been used. I think already we can see what the intention of the department will be in applying this legislation.

The bill also seems to be very politically correct in that it is discriminatory. Once again, by picking out special interest groups, the government misses out on protecting the people it should be protecting. In the preamble of the bill it mentions that we need to take into account the effects of chemicals on major identifiable subgroups, including pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors. However it completely misses mentioning the effects on the people who use chemicals the most and who are most closely exposed to them, and that is men.

It is fine to identify the other identifiable subgroups. It is true that some of them are more susceptible to chemicals than others. In my constituency the men are exposed most closely to the majority of the chemicals. Men are working with them consistently. I would expect that to be fair government legislation should deal with everyone, not just the politically correct groups. It is an insult that seems to always accompany special interest politics by people who either do not really understand how things work right on the ground or bureaucrats who have an agenda.

I would like to talk a bit about the people at home. I come from an agricultural area where chemicals are used. The people who use them are primarily the men in our area. The farmers use them in spring to treat seed crops, fungicides and in a number of other ways. Later in the spring they use them for weed control and insect control. In the fall there are chemicals that are often applied as well. I suggest men do have special characteristics. There are a number of illnesses that are often ignored because it seems they are male in origin, while other more politically popular and perhaps more politically correct diseases get a lot of funding and attention from different places.

The bill discriminates. I am not too sure the people who wrote it realize that. My question would be this. How used to that way of thinking have we become that we begin to discriminate but do not realize it?

As so many other bills, this bill also has a coercive element to it. We have seen other coercive government thinking. We have seen the big stick approach in a number of other bills as well. Just lately, in Bill C-5, the government insisted on passing a bill without providing for compensation for landowners who would be affected by it. The government said that we should be comforted by the fact that at some point in the future it would put compensation in regulations.

We have seen it in Bill C-15B where there are very strong penalties for animal rights abuses, yet at the same time the government has chosen not to protect farmers and ranchers from frivolous claims and attacks on their normal way of life. We have seen it also in Bill C-68 which over the years has been a source of a lot of contention and problems.

We see it here again in terms of the transportation, disposal and handling of these products. Clause 6 reads:

No person shall handle, store, transport, use or dispose of a pest control product in a way that is inconsistent with...

Then it states the regulations and a couple of other options.

Later we see that the fines are very substantial. Penalties are severe: $200,000 or six months in jail for a summary conviction and $500,000 and three years upon conviction from an indictment.

I would suggest that farmers will be caught in this. It may be news to the government but containers are not always disposed of in the manner that the bureaucrats have decided is good. That happens for a number of reasons. Often the regulations are made with no accommodation for compliance. The regulations are set up but it is not practical to comply with them or there is no funding in place to make it possible to comply with them. Often there are physical barriers to compliance which includes things like no local facility to dispose of the product or the extra containers.

The best solution I saw on this was in my home province of Saskatchewan. It came out with a program where the containers were triple rinsed and then returned to the local landfill site. It was very successful, it was voluntary and it had educational component to it. Farmers were very happy to comply with the program. They just needed a bit of encouragement and some education on the fact that the program was there for them. Fines of $200,000 will not encourage compliance as much as encouragement and a good program with a bit of education.

I have some concerns as well about the re-evaluation process. Clause 16 talks about that. It mentions that all chemicals shall be re-evaluated at some point. It talks about the fact that if the pest control product was approved in the past years, then the review process would have to be implemented fairly quickly. There is a time limit on when new chemicals will have to be re-evaluated.

This could be a very good process or it could be a disaster. We need to know more about the provisions to re-evaluate all chemicals on the market. If the government tells everyone to begin from the start with these chemicals in order to get them re-evaluated, we will find ourselves with a very expensive, cumbersome process.

The PMRA has not exactly been successful at its registration of new products. I do not know that we can throw every chemical that we have approved in the last 30 years on it without causing a huge backlog. If the government expects companies to start over with the registration, it will be just about impossible. However, if at some point it is willing to set up with an ongoing evaluation system and give approval to chemicals that demonstrate that they are not a problem that are not causing problems in the environment, then this re-evaluation process could be an excellent thing. All of it depends upon the application of the process.

I have great concern over subclause 17(2) which talks about a special review every time any OECD country takes a product off the market. We know that trade concerns can often be hidden behind health and environmental issues. We have already run into that a number of times in other areas. I suggest this ties us too closely to other countries and their activities. The Liberal government seems to be very wary of getting too close to the United States, yet in this legislation says that if any OECD country decides to pull a chemical off the market, we need to do an automatic review of its registration.

If it is good to do it that way, why do we not do it the other way as well. If any one of the OECD countries approves a product, then we approve it as well and put it on the market. That would be a fair exchange. That is not part of this bill and it is not likely that would ever happen.

There are other concerns as well. One is harmonization. We were pleased to get one of the Alliance amendments through on harmonization. Under our amendment when an applicant applies for a registered pest control product or to amend the pest control product registration, they would now be able to submit information from reviews and evaluations conducted in other OECD countries.

We heard this a PMRA hearings. People want the opportunity to bring information here that has already been developed in other places and use as part of our registration. If we use a chemical under similar conditions, it makes good sense that we use that information. It avoids costly duplication for pesticide makers. It cuts down on the cost of the registration process. It actually hastens the process of getting those chemicals onto the market where they can replace some of the older and maybe more hazardous chemicals.

Minor use is one of my other concerns. A major shortfall in Bill C-53 is that it gives no consideration to minor use products. The agriculture committee has heard this a number of times. It is very important for horticulture and vegetable specialty crops. It is important that there be a discussion about minor use and the way it will work in Canada. Minor use applications are increasing as we go to more niche marketing.

There are a lot of times that the economy of scale absolutely does not support full registration. There was a situation last spring on the prairies regarding chick peas. Because the Bravo chemical was not working in stopping the ascochyta, I approached the government to try to get another chemical approved. It took some time but the other chemical, Quadras, was approved and it worked very well. However the approval process for that chemical took quite a bit of time. That approval time has to be shortened up. If a chemical is available, if it has been used in other places and if we seem to have similar conditions here, then it should be available quickly. This is important for Canadian competitiveness.

Fruit and vegetable growers have told us that they need these chemicals. If they are available in the United States, if they have been approved and are on the market and if we have similar conditions, we need to be able to use them. The government has recognized the importance of minor use but has done nothing about it.

Concern about access to minor use products was brought up prominently in the recent report of the agriculture committee on registration of pesticides and the competitiveness of Canadian farmers. According to the report:

Canadian farmers...do not have access to the same safe and effective pest management tools as their competitors, particularly American producers.

I was glad to be part of the committee that put that report together. It called for several improvements and I would like to read two of them to the House.

First, the committee has called for at least $1 million a year in funding for research and an analysis program similar to the U.S. IR-4 that will be developed in co-operation with agricultural stakeholders to generate the necessary data for approval of new minor use pesticide products or to expand the use of previously approved products.

A second recommendation is that an adviser on matters pertaining to minor use pest control products be appointed to intervene in decisions and policies to facilitate activities relating to minor use products. This adviser's mandate would include a special focus on harmonization issues with the United States such as the equivalency of similar zone maps and the consideration of data already existing in an OECD country. The adviser would report to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Another concern the committee is that the bill does not address the issue of reduced risk products. It makes no provision for getting these new, safer reduced risk products directly into the marketplace. We need to expedite the reviews of such products.

The United States has reduced risk category and timelines in approving them. Last year the timelines to get these products onto the market was approximately 35% less than conventional pesticides. There are some big savings in terms of efficiency and cost.

Bill C-53 also does not mention any timelines for registration. That is an important change but perhaps it will be made later. There needs to be some timelines put on registration because presently this is taking far too long.

The health committee also heard from a number of witnesses that registrations were taking too long compared to the United States. That was consistent with what the agriculture committee heard as well. Our party has pressed for timelines to be drawn up but the government has chosen not to put them into this legislation.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the PMRA, which seems to be an ongoing problem in the agriculture sector. This legislation will be completely wasted unless changes are made to the PMRA.

Unfortunately, the bill does not bring accountability to the PMRA. Timelines are a concern within the PMRA, but also the audits that this legislation calls for do not go far enough. There is no requirement in the bill to report the financial information of the agency. We already saw the failure of that in the Canadian Wheat Board audit where wheat board directors were allowed to set the conditions for the audit.

The auditor general did a good job on the area she was allowed to study but she was not allowed to study the overall operations. She ended up doing a study of office management but could not study the overall efficiency of the board. Because of that she was prevented from reaching any conclusions about the kind of job the CWB was doing for farmers. I would not like to see the same thing happening with the PMRA. We need to know if the agency's objectives are being achieved in an expeditious manner.

Both the health and agriculture committees heard a number of times from witnesses their concerns about the PMRA. Many of their administrative and management practices were called into question repeatedly. The agriculture committee highlighted problems with the PMRA. We were told that seven years after the PMRA was started up it had advanced the pesticide registration system but the impatience and frustration of farmers persisted and was systematic of a glitch in the agency's overall operation.

We heard from many witnesses who were frustrated with having to deal with the PMRA bureaucracy and feeling that they could not get through the registration process. They could not talk with the people who could make decisions and often regulations were changed while they were trying to work on registrations.

The agriculture committee recommended that an independent ombudsman be appointed to facilitate discussions on the needs of farmers regarding pest control within the PMRA. We made a recommendation that the Auditor General of Canada conduct a value for money or performance audit to examine the management practices, controls and reporting systems of the PMRA.

We feel it is important that for the legislation to work that the problems within the PMRA be resolved if any of the worthy goals of the legislation are to be realized. The bill is only as good as the PMRA's ability to administer it.

I will go over the agriculture committee recommendations made regarding the PMRA. It is important that we get them on the record because we heard a lot of concern about these needs. The report that the agriculture committee submitted dealing with pesticide registration had four recommendations.

First, it recommended there be an ombudsman independent of the PMRA that would report to the health minister. Poor communication between farmers and the PMRA has been a concern. Having a third party reporting directly to the Minister of Health would certainly alleviate disputes. We thought it was a good idea and that the time had come for this to take place.

Second, it called for the auditor general to do a full audit of the PMRA. The PMRA has been slow in registering products. It has been far too slow. Bureaucrats from the PMRA told the committee that it was due to inadequate funding. There are people who would dispute that but the auditor general's recommendation would allow general performance and management practices to be audited for efficiency and we could then see whether this bureau is funded adequately or not. It would be important to do a value for money check to examine the management practices and the efficiency, or the lack of efficiency, that we may find within the PMRA.

Third, we called for a recommendation dealing with funding to enhance broader product access. More funding is needed for the approval of minor use pesticides. In the United States, for example, the EPA has approved 901 new pesticides and new uses for existing pesticides. The PMRA has only approved 24 products since March 2000. Are we getting good value for our money?

The committee recommended at least $1 million a year in funding from Agriculture Canada for research and analysis development in co-operation with stakeholders for the approval of new minor use products.

Fourth, we made a recommendation for a scientific data adviser. The PMRA often seems to reinvent the wheel every time an application comes in for a minor use product. The committee recommended an adviser on minor use pest controls to intervene in decisions and policies. The minor use registration is a growing and significant part of what the PMRA will do. It is important for it to have a scientific adviser in place to make good and quick decisions on minor use. The person could work specifically on the harmonization with the U.S. There should be some equivalency with the United States and encouragement to use existing data so that we do not have to repeat the research that was done several other times.

The bill is needed and it is time that it was passed. It is long overdue. We have some reservations about it and I have tried to make some suggestions of areas that the government might consider improving. I know that they will not be in the bill but hopefully in the future the government would take a look at putting some of these improvements into place. The government could have done a better job but the bill serves the purpose of beginning the process.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to be absolutely clear, I would say to my colleague, with whom I enjoyed working at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, that this report is one of the best documents produced by a House committee in years.

Naturally, I would have preferred that the committee's recommendations be more extensively reflected in Bill C-53. I think the other members of the committee would also have preferred that. I would especially have liked to see the bill reflect the committee's recommendations in the area of the precautionary principle applied to the cosmetic use of pesticides, and in the area of re-evaluation and review for new products.

As far as the cosmetic use of pesticides is concerned, the government has decided, in accordance with recommendations from the justice department, that it would be unconstitutional to refuse to register pesticides if, for example, we had proof that they posed no risk to human health. However, we know there is always a human health risk.

I agreed to be the sponsor of a private member's bill tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who is now a parliamentary secretary. That bill asked that the federal government ban the cosmetic use of pesticides by refusing registration. I hope this bill will be debated in the House so that we can thoroughly discuss this important issue.

In passing, I am very pleased to see that the present Quebec environment minister, whom I know very well, has decided to adopt a policy on the cosmetic use of pesticides. I believe he aims at reducing that practice with the ultimate goal of eliminating it altogether. I hope this legislation will pass in Quebec and that it will influence the rest of Canada pending a change in direction, here in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, who was environment minister in Quebec and for whom I have great respect. I sat with him on the former environment committee, and we were guided by his good advice as we adopted several amendments in connection with the report on pesticides entitled “Making the Right Choice”.

While listening to him earlier, I read through entire pages of the report that we tabled. At present, Bill C-53 does not prohibit the cosmetic use of pesticides. Yet we know how harmful it can be to children and pregnant women.

He also talked about the re-evaluation of pesticides registered before 1995, saying that they will not all be re-evaluated and that there is no deadline for re-evaluation. When I sat on the environment committee, this issue was debated and witnesses were heard.

What does he think about the fact that his government was not sufficiently specific regarding the re-evaluation of currently registered pesticides? We know that not allowing the re-evaluation of pesticides registered before 1995 prevents the evaluation of new pesticides.

I want to know what my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis thinks of the fact that two entire sections of our report barely made it into Bill C-53. I would like to have his comments on that.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, along with my government colleagues, I voted in the House to pass Bill C-53 at report stage. It has a long title, which reads as follows: “An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests”.

It is obvious that this new legislation is a clear improvement over the current act, which is 33 years old. As was strongly recommended by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and by the environment and sustainable development commissioner, it was urgent to act and to renew the legislation.

So Bill C-53 is a step forward. This new legislation deserves our support.

However, as a number of environmental and health organizations that I respect have stated, the government has lost an opportunity to bring in progressive legislation to replace the 33 year old laws now governing pesticide registration in this country. I will quote from a communiqué issued by some of these groups at the time of the tabling of the law. Stated Sandra Schwartz of Pollution Probe:

Bill C-53 enshrines current practice. We were looking for the new Pest Control Products Act to substantially improve our current practice.

Kathleen Cooper, researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association said:

Some new provisions that specifically refer to children are welcome, but the bill doesn't even match what has been in place for years in the United States to protect kids.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, after extensive study, made recommendations that would vastly improve Canada's pest management practices. This it did in its substantive report entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”. Yet this legislative proposal does more to reaffirm present practices, albeit more safely, than embark on the bold course of renewal recommended by the committee. Fortunately, the health committee amended the bill to ensure regular review of the bill, albeit only once every seven years rather than every five years as proposed by four motions at the committee. This review will ensure that major problems not now addressed in the bill can be revisited and improvements can be made.

A great deal of detail still needs to be set out in regulations and it is up to us to make sure that there is follow through in these regulations. We must take full advantage of the annual reporting provisions that have been provided through committee amendments to see that the details are turned into reality.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, new pest management legislation is desperately needed. Bill C-53 is certainly not a huge step forward, as was hoped, but it is worthwhile supporting. Our farmers want new legislation to provide faster access to less harmful pesticides and also better information that will enable them to reduce their need for pesticides. Canadians all across the country want greater protection from harmful chemicals that are used in and around our homes, our schools and places of work.

The legislation, although no panacea, is a start. Prudent avoidance is something we all need to practice. Implementation of Bill C-53 should lead to safer products on the market, but we must all make an effort to learn about the inherent dangers of these chemicals, be ever conscious of them and indeed be extremely aware of the dangers of these chemicals so that we can make changes in our buying habits and our behaviour to substantially reduce our risk of exposure.

The health committee made a number of significant improvements to the bill. I am particularly grateful to members for accepting an amendment I proposed to strengthen the educational mandate of the minister.

I would like to underline some of the improvements made by the health committee. First, on the mandate of the minister to inform the public, the health committee amended Bill C-53 to give the Minister of Health a mandate to actively inform the public about pesticides. Unfortunately, much of the wording I suggested on educating the public about pest control products, the health and environmental risks associated with their use, the need to avoid non-essential uses and the availability of alternatives to the use of these products was not adopted, but the essence was retained.

It is my hope that we will build on this and create something along the lines of a non-smoking campaign to reduce pesticide use, which will one day lead to a phase-out of chemical pesticides in our homes and gardens.

When I was privileged to introduce and pass the pesticides act of Quebec, we insisted that the powers of the minister include the following duties. I will quote from subsection 9(2), which states:

carry out or commission research, studies, inquiries or analyses pertaining to the effects of the use of pesticides on the quality of the environment and on human health and, generally, on any topic relating to pesticides and alternatives to their use;--

Subsection 9(3) states:

devise, foster and ensure the implementation of plans and programs to train specialists, educate and inform the public and promote awareness in the field of pesticides;--

For if we make the public more aware, if we take special steps to educate them as to the dangers of pesticides, as to the fact that safer alternatives might be there, but better still that no pesticide use is far better, especially in homes, schools and parks, then we will have carried out a very worthwhile task for our citizens.

One of the improvements in the bill is that “acceptable risk” is now defined. This is extremely important for the interpretation of this legislation and the definition is a tremendous improvement over what the current practice provides. The onus would now be on the applicant to provide evidence that its products would cause no harm. Besides that, future generations are also taken into consideration in the new definition. This is an important measure.

Formulants are now included in the definition of a pest control product. For this, credit must be given to the committee for listening to the many public health advocates and environmentalists who have been calling for formulants to be given full consideration within the act.

A number of amendments increase the protection of human health and the environment provided for by the bill, such as the consideration of aggregate exposure and cumulative effect in risk assessment, re-evaluations and special reviews, which is a key measure indeed. The protection of children is extended to future generations. Lower risk products will have expedited review. Stronger language favouring alternative products and strategies is included in the preamble.

Finally, in terms of public accountability there is now a seven year parliamentary review and the annual status report is to include registrations, including lower risk products. Seven years was a compromise made by the committee. Although I would have preferred a five year review, I would hope that at review time significant changes could be made to improve the workings of our pesticide law.

There are indeed shortcomings, especially compared to the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which will need to be addressed when the review is carried out.

We must all be vigilant in ensuring that regulations promised by the bill are brought forward without delay and that steps are taken to address the fundamental problems at the first review of the legislation. In particular, I would hope that at that time the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, would be given a statutory mandate. That was one of the key issues referred to in the standing committee's report.

I would like to quote from the committee's report, at page 144, where the committee said:

When the PMRA was created in 1995, it was given the following mandate: To protect human health and the environment by minimizing the risks associated with pest control products, while enabling access to pest management tools, namely these products and sustainable pest management strategies.

The committee goes on to say:

Given that the PMRA is directed both to protect human health and the environment and to make pesticides available, it is small wonder that concerns have been raised about its “dual” mandate, particularly when no clear priority is given to minimizing risks to human health and the environment over access to pesticides. Both interests appear to be placed on an equal footing and require a delicate balancing.

This is essentially what the Minister of Health said in the House of Commons when responding to a question raised by a member of parliament. It is quoted in the report that the minister said:

As the Member knows, the PMRA has to balance public safety and environmental concerns against the needs of producers and growers. In the opinion of the Committee, the PMRA's dual mandate sends out decidedly “mixed” signals. These signals are even more mixed in light of the goals the federal government has set for the Agency. In the opinion of the Committee, one of the root problems with the PMRA is its weak and equivocal mandate. Protecting human health and the environment must be given priority over all else.

The committee goes on to compare the mission of the office of pesticides program, OPP, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency whose mission statement is as follows:

To protect public health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides and to promote safer means of pest control.

The committee recommended the following:

--(a) give absolute priority to the protection of human health and the environment when considering whether to approve a pesticide for use in Canada or allow its continued use; (b) promote the use of sustainable pest management strategies that seek to reduce use, risk and reliance on pesticides; (c) emphasize the development of safer pest control products; and (d) inform and educate the public about pesticides and the risks associated with their use.

These were the four items of the mandate suggested for the PMRA by the committee.

The government chose to give the authority to the minister herself, and rightly so because the minister is ultimately responsible for the law. However the fact is that the application of the law on a day to day basis has always rested with the PMRA which makes decisions on registration of pesticides, on regulation and on review.

Although the ultimate decision and the ultimate authority is given to the minister and the goals are stated that protection of human health and the environment is our priority in the law on behalf of the minister, I still believe that there would have been no inconsistency in setting out a clear mission statement for the PMRA so that the PMRA and all its members would be under no illusion that protection of human health and the environment are paramount and that registration of pesticides is the ultimate last resort.

Apparently there is a great deal of creative debate about the implementation of the precautionary principle in legislation. The government has issued a discussion document to solicit input as to the development of government policy in the area of the precautionary principle.

It was my hope, as many witnesses suggested during hearings on this legislation, that the precautionary principle would be enshrined throughout the bill. Bill C-53 falls far short of this. I would hope that during the review of the bill, a truly precautionary direction would be adopted.

In this connection, I would like to quote the head of the PMRA. She said:

--the ultimate precautionary approach [is]: If we have any questions or reasons to believe that we need more information to be able to assure ourselves that there's reasonable certainty of no harm, we simply do not register the product. We don't need another tool to be able to say what should we do in the event that there may be people exposed and there may be a problem. That's why we've tried to very clearly point out that the precautionary approach or principle on a product that's out there, gives you that little extra piece that you may want to have to take quick action, but we don't put that product on the market if it's a brand new active. That's why it's inappropriate to utilize a precautionary principle to define what it is that's done for a brand new product that is not already on the market.

This in my view is a classic example of saying “Don't worry, we do it already”. If that is the case, then why not put it in the law? There are really no answers to that question except to enshrine the precautionary principle.

I note that the head of the PMRA mentioned brand new active products, and certainly not mentioning the thousands of other ingredients that are out there.

I believe that with regard to pesticides, Bill C-53 goes a long way to address the gaps that the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development identified in his May 1999 report entitled “Understanding the Risks from Toxic Substances: Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House”.

The new commissioner, Johanne Gelinas, came before the health committee this spring and stated:

--the main message in the May 1999 Report was that there was a substantial gap between talk and action on the federal government's environmental and sustainable development agenda. I believe this is still the case today and we are paying the price in terms of our health, environment, standard of living, and legacy to our children and grandchildren.

She further stated:

--effective legislation will be key for addressing some of the issues confronting the government and the PMRA. Key areas in this regard include provisions for reporting and information sharing, requirements for conducting re-evaluations and special reviews, and the establishment of a national sales database.

Bill C-53 is not perfect but it is a good start. It deserves our support and I hope it will become law very soon.

I will end on a note about the financial aspect. No matter how good a law may be, if the financial resources are not made available to implement it, the law will not be effective.

The commissioner's 1999 report remarked that within existing budgets departments were struggling to meet legislated responsibilities, policy commitments and international treaty obligations, and in many cases are failing to do so.

The environment committee recommended that the government provide the Pest Management Regulatory Agency with the necessary additional financial resources to effectively carry out its entire program.

In fairness, I should put on the record that in the last budget a sum of many millions, I believe $20 million, was provided toward the process of controlling pesticides. This is of course both required and welcomed. We must now ensure that the new law be supported by whatever necessary funds are needed to implement and enforce the law and its regulations, especially with regard to the re-evaluation of pesticides that have been in the field for years and years and in special reviews.

In closing, I wanted to recommend that, once the bill is passed, we follow its implementation very closely to ensure that it is as effective as possible, until we can definitely improve it in 2009.

Meanwhile, I will certainly support this bill with great conviction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the last time to speak about Bill C-53.

After 30 years, we are finally going to have a new bill on the products used to control pests, products we commonly call pesticides. It took a long time; the process stirred up various forces throughout the country and drove governments and political parties to action or inaction.

For a few years now, we have seen environmental groups, community groups and municipalities adopt one position, and the pesticide industry and farmers take the opposite stand, of course. I must remind the House that the agriculture and agrifood industry uses 90% of all pesticides.

This means that there were some fears, especially on the part of Canadian farm producers. For several years, they have been severely hit by the environment, because of the droughts and the floods. All over Canada, farmers have to face some harsh realities. So naturally the industry was concerned about rules that would make it more difficult to use certain products to increase production whenever nature gives farmers a chance to do their job.

The other industry, which had even more concerns, was the pesticide producers. Invoking all sorts of arguments to justify their intentions, they wanted to hide as much as possible some of the active or inert ingredients used in tpesticides.

This being said, the committee managed to make some progress towards public protection. I say “some progress” because we had asked that the precautionary principle be mentioned in the preamble to the bill and in some clauses of Bill C-53. The government turned down most amendments put forward by opposition parties including the Progressive Conservative Party.

We had some success though with an amendment aimed at informing the public. When a product is about to be registered and reviewed by the government, the information must be put in the registry, which is public. Should the product be harmful and so dangerous that the government might have to intervene, there is a nationwide notice.

We had put forward amendments to Bill C-53 regarding labelling for instance. We believe that labelling, which is central to consumers' information, to the men and women who purchase these products on a daily basis in Canada, should be much more detailed. The government refused. We know that pressures came from the industry.

We wanted to redefine the whole issue regarding confidential data, again to inform the public, so that people would be aware of the risks linked to the use of pesticides and pest control products.

However, like the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that put forward an excellent report on the issue, we realized that the federal government was lagging behind municipal governments and several provincial governments in Canada. This is not the first time a government lacks vision, and this is yet another example. It becomes apparent, as I said a few days ago here in the House, at report stage.

In Quebec, there is an ad campaign. I say it again because it is important. In Quebec, the ad campaign is very well done and subtle. You see someone entering a store, a hardware store, and asking a clerk, a man or a woman, “Do you have something against bugs?” The clerk answers “No”. It is not because he does not have any product, but because he does not have anything against bugs. In an other ad, someone asks “Do you have something against dandelions?” And the answer is “No”.

With these ads, people realize that there are means to control pests and weeds.

Some say that dandelions are not weeds, that dandelion wine is good for lowering cholesterol, and that dandelions are great in salads, as they have a delightful, different taste. They say dandelions is slightly bitter, but very good. I never tried them.

That being said, we see that things are changing as far as public education, awareness and practical measures are concerned. It took 30 years to get some action from the federal government, no matter what party was in power. And, even then, this bill does not go far enough.

I remember I was hopping mad at report stage. An amendment by the Progressive Conservative Party got through the committee with unanimous support. We imagined it would stay in the bill, but, at report stage, the government moved an amendment to throw it out. I was dumbfounded.

The parliamentary secretary was in the House at the time. Furious, I told him that, politically, he was gutless, because his government was moving against an amendment he supported.

Regarding the whole issue of the way committees operate--you know, Mr. Speaker, you have always shown great sensitivity toward committees—this is like a slap in the face for members of House committees.

If the government votes against opposition amendments, that it fine. This can make sense and be legitimate, in part. There is quite often a very political element, because the governmentmay not want to constantly redraft bills based on amendments brought forward in committees. Unfortunately, we understand this is the way things work, at present. We hope this will change.

However, using a government motion to reject an amendment that was unanimously passed during clause by clause study, is a slap in the face, not in terms of the balance between government and opposition forces, but in terms of the whole House. This is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable.

We had several amendments. We even withdrew some. In committee, we must also try to have the most important amendments passed. The precautionary principle was one. Labelling was another one. Information and the inputting of all the information into the registry was dealt with in another amendment. Most of the amendments were rejected.

However, we try, we negotiate and we raise awareness to move things forward. We manage, after one, two or three days, or one or two weeks of work, to have an amendment passed. This makes us proud. We say everything is working fine. We can make a positive contribution to a government bill. This makes us happy, this makes us proud.

We spend hours, days, weeks and years considering an issue to get to a report. Then there is a draft bill and, finally, hopefully, legislation that corrects a problem and that provides a vision.

We work hard in committee. We work long hours. We negotiate. We talk to opposition members, to government members, to parliamentary secretaries and even sometimes to the ministers' offices to try to have at least the principles behind the amendments accepted. If the principles are understood, we then move our amendments.

We manage to get a few amendments accepted that have an impact and that help improve the bill. But, over a period or four to five years, all our work is destroyed. It is enough to make one wonder if committees exist just to keep members busy. We should be sent back to our ridings. We have a lot of work to do there. I find that very disappointing.

That being said, Bill C-53, with all its flaws—we must be aware of this--replaces a 30 year old act.

Despite all these flaws—the list is quite long and I do not have the time to mention them all—and despite the fact that the government acted in bad faith in committee and especially at report stage in the House, we will support this flawed bill.

We would have liked a review of the bill after five years. Everything goes so fast in this field. The government said ten years, and we suggested five years. In committee, we negotiated and agreed on seven years. Seven years is a long time before new regulations can be tabled, but the life expectancy of the bill will be four to five years.

If we can get information through annual reports and if it becomes urgent to amend one or two sections, we can do that in the House. The Conservative Party is very open to the whole idea of modernizing anything that is related to the environment.

We can see that, since 1993, the government has done virtually nothing about the environment, and now it is patting itself on the back about Bills C-5 and C-53.

In ten years of Liberal reign, there have been two bills, one of which spent years with the standing committee on the environment. My colleague from Fundy—Royal has devoted a huge number of hours, weeks, months and years to it. The same thing happened in the standing committee on health. We can push the government all we like, but if what we are promoting does not fit into its vision, its partisan Liberal strategy, there will not be much progress made. They do not want to rock the boat. Visions are all very well for partisan politics, but when it comes to government, what they do instead is to appear to be a little more flexible, take their time, get their members involved in each of the committees, and do the same thing over and over, two, three, four times.

How many times have we wasted time over the endangered species bill? It is an important bill. How many times did it go back and forth? The same topic comes up three different times in committee and in bills. It makes no sense.

The standing committee on the environment did its job with respect to Bill C-53. It was not a matter of reinventing the wheel; it is just that the government neglected to move on. The vehicle was there. There was a significant consensus within the committee. There was an absolutely amazing list of witnesses, and the committee went out to meet with them. Its reaction, “Yes, that is fine, but we are going to start all over again. We think that it involves health, not the environment”. I have spoken with my colleague from Fundy—Royal on this and asked him what was different about it. His answer, “Nothing. We have to start over. By the way, here is a copy of the environment committee report. You are going to do more or less the same thing over again”. That is what happened.

We were not able to improve on it further. The issues that the standing committee on the environment raised are essentially the same ones that were raised by the Standing Committee on Heath. We were unable to promote our amendments anymore than the standing committee on the environment.

The bill has been described as flawed, cobbled together, but it is better to have a flawed bill than outdated legislation. The act is thirty years old; for a an act, that it old. I know there are some acts that are older, but in an industry that evolves so quickly, where competition is so strong, we must act. We must not wait. The government has finally decided to act.

Of course, people often point to the town of Hudson, but it is important to note what is being done in Aylmer, Quebec, and what Ottawa city council will be doing. People are acting across Canada. People are being proactive and there is a vision. They have not been waiting for 56 regulations to raise awareness and educate the public. It is too easy to grab a product and apply it.

Some day the government will have a vision, a strategy. It will be prepared to make important decisions for the people it represents and for those it wants to represent, future generations.

In order to implement any type of environmental program to help communities, people who live in urban or outlying areas, there must be a vision. The government has thrown together some sort of a sponsorship program, where big PR firms pocket 12% commissions just to pass on a cheque. Meanwhile, a former Liberal minister, André Ouellet, who is the president of Canada Post Corporation, says that stamps do not cost much and that it is even less for members, with franked mail. So, it might be an idea to have a vision for people who live in our municipalities, in our regions and provinces.

That said, it is indeed better than nothing. We have a bill that has been cobbled together, instead of a dead system. The Progressive Conservative Party will support it. However, we hope that some day, the legislation will go much further and that there will be a partnership between both houses of parliament and the public who will be supporting a party that has a vision for the people of this country.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to express our concerns over Bill C-53 and what the bill actually does not do.

One of our concerns is that the legislation is still extremely vague. Many of the details such as timelines for re-evaluation processes, types of tests used in risk assessments, et cetera, will be left to regulations. The precautionary principle is not enshrined as one of the principles of the act and that is a serious flaw in the bill. Although the legislation is an improvement over what was there before, no new money has been committed to look at the long term effects on our natural environment, on children and those people who are susceptible to pesticides.

I am proud to say I come from Nova Scotia. The city of Halifax is moving forward in terms of its pesticide bylaws. To my friends who live in Hudson, Quebec, that was the first city in Canada to make a supreme court challenge to be able to say what can and cannot be used in terms of pesticides in their natural environment.

We as parliamentarians should ensure that the health of the planet and the health of our children come first and foremost. That should be in the minds of all legislators and bureaucrats when they are drafting a bill. What will the bill do to enshrine and protect the interests and security of children and those most susceptible and vulnerable? It is not just for the human species but for other species as well.

We hear constantly about the horrors in Canada of bad drinking water. When pesticides are applied to lawns, golf courses or any area, there is a runoff effect. Eventually the pesticides end up in the water table and eventually end up in our drinking water. That should be of grave concern to all Canadians.

I can understand the use of pesticides in agricultural concerns, but I am quite glad that some golf courses in Nova Scotia where I partake in the odd round or two have reduced their pesticide use by almost 80% over the last six years. They are working to eventually say they run the course without using any pesticides at all. It will be a very good day when that happens not only for the grand game of golf but also for the natural environment.

We should be enshrining it in any legislation. The government cannot honestly say to the children of the country or the world that the legislation will protect their interests down the road. There are still serious health risks out there.

Although the bill is a slight improvement over what was there before, the New Democratic Party cannot support the legislation at this time. We would like to see further amendments made, especially when it comes to funding commitments and other concerns. We should be encouraging our society and industries to wean themselves off pesticide use.

As a little side note, I always get a kick out of people who spray their little postage stamp size lawns to get rid of a dandelion. Since when was a dandelion so offensive? What is really ironic is we can buy dandelion greens in specialty food stores or as in Nova Scotia, a superstore. It is quite ironic that someone would spend a couple of bucks to buy dandelion greens and would turn around and spray Killex or other materials on their lawns to get rid of them. It is unbelievable.

If people do not like a weed, a dandelion or anything of that nature, they should use a little shovel, get on their knees and dig it out. They do not have to spend all kinds of money on pesticides. Eventually the pesticides will get into the drinking water. This also affects birds, worms, dogs, cats, and children who play on their lawns. People should be more reflective of the actions they take when it comes to pesticide use.

People have to realize that what they put on their lawns has a downstream effect. I am proud that Halifax is moving forward on this issue. The Halifax council should be complimented and congratulated, just like those great people in Hudson.

We in the New Democratic Party oppose this legislation. We think it is a small step forward but the government could have taken the time to move it much further ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my speech on Bill C-53, which, as I indicated, seeks to amend an act that has been in effect for 33 years.

What we are in the process of doing is rather important, and it is also important to pass this bill. However, in my opinion, we should have adopted certain amendments. We are currently faced with a situation where the vast majority of the 6,000 pesticides in Canada, which contain 500 active ingredients, were evaluated by using 33 year old standards. The result of this is that we do not really know the impact of the use of these pesticides, both on public health and on the environment.

This change was urgently required, not only because, in my opinion, the evaluation standards are outdated, but also because we were told—and the environmental commissioner was very clear on this a several years ago—that the agency responsible for the registration and re-evaluation of pesticides is ineffective and is not operating properly.

So, it was important that these changes be amde quickly. In her 1999 report, the commissioner indicated that the process lacked clarity and that certain aspects of the special examinations were dealt with in a negligent manner.

She also indicated that there was a lack of re-evaluation programs and that Canada was lagging far behind other countries. An international comparative study was conducted and Canada ranked behind the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia in terms of the percentage of expenditures earmarked for the evaluation of pesticides.

Therefore, it was important that this legislation be reviewed quickly and that the agency be given the means to conduct good re-evaluations and implement a sound registration process.

This is why, at the time, we asked for these legislative amendments. Moreover, as I indicated, Quebec passed its own pesticide legislation in 1987.

We believe that the legislation can and must reflect a degree of complementarity in terms of the measures taken and pest control. Let me explain. We on this side of the House feel that the federal government is responsible for the registration, marketing and labelling of pesticides.

We also believe that the provinces, including Quebec, are responsible for the use of pesticides. It goes without saying that municipalities also have a role to play.

However, the role played by municipalities today is fairly complex. Why? Partly as a result of a supreme court judgment from June 2001. This judgment gave the town of Hudson the power to regulate the cosmetic use of pesticides.

In 1991, the town of Hudson decided to pass a bylaw banning the use of pesticides.

There were many legal challenges in Quebec courts. This ended with the supreme court judgment in November 2001, which stated that since municipalities were provincial creations under Quebec's Cities and Towns Act and the Municipal Code of Québec, they have the right to regulate the cosmetic use of pesticides.

However, this judgment made reference to the fact that municipalities are under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. That is when Quebec decided to act, establishing the Cousineau discussion group on October 25, 2001, to look at the use of pesticides in urban areas. For four days in January 2002, the group heard from more than 550 organizations and individuals, and it reached a certain number of conclusions.

First, the group plans on telling the minister “There must be a plan to ban the use of pesticides. We must set a three year deadline for public spaces, such as parks, public sites, schools and childcare centres”.

Is it right that we are still spreading pesticides in urban areas, in parks and childcare centers, when we know full well the impact they can have on children and nursing and pregnant women?

The group said “Let us give ourselves three years to ban the use of pesticides in public places, and five years for trees and shrubs”. This is one of the report's strong conclusions.

The second recommendation says that a training program for environmental management stakeholders should quickly be put in place. It does not make sense that workers, sales persons and people who use pesticides on a daily basis do not know the way to use them. We believe that the provinces should establish management and training programs.

Also, as I have already mentioned, alternative procedures have to be put in place and we must establish, and this is fundamental, a pesticide management code or, as it is called, a regulatory framework.

Following the supreme court's decision regarding the town of Hudson and the tabling of the Cousineau report, I believe that we should implement in Quebec a national standard for the use of pesticides, which could be called a code of environmental management, or pesticide management code, to ensure compliance, so that all municipalities, not one but all, implement this management code across Quebec.

These are the main recommendations of the Cousineau report, which the Quebec environment minister has received and on the basis of which he pledged to introduce a policy.

Before that, in May 2000, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, of which my colleague from Jonquière was a member, tabled its report. The committee did a serious study on the use of pesticides and several conclusions came out of its work. This is what the committee recommends.

First, members of the committee believe that we should eliminate, within five years, the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. This is one of the main conclusions of the Standing Committee, though we should be cautious about that. The federal government itself recognized that it does not have the power to prohibit, under the Constitution, the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, which is a provincial jurisdiction.

We feel that the federal government should be responsible for the registration and marketing of pesticides and that the provinces should be responsible for their use. This time, the federal government must be given credit for deciding to mind its own business, unlike with other legislation. It decided to confine its activities to marketing and registration. We will come back to this. The PMRA works very badly and lacks transparency. There are no provisions in the bill for a ban.

But the provinces must act. Quebec has promised to eliminate the use of pesticides in public places over a period of three to five years.

We recommend that the precautionary principle be an important element. This recommendation was made in committee. The member for Louis-Hébert also sat on the committee and, for once, there was no partisanship. We were all of the same opinion; the government should stick to its own business. There was solid unanimity, and this included Department of Justice officials, which was recognized by the federal government.

I do not know whether the present leadership struggle has anything to do with the apparently greater receptiveness to a provincial role, but I think that we had some good exchanges in committee. In any event, we concluded that the federal government should not ban cosmetic use.

At the time, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development thought that the precautionary principle should be the cornerstone of Bill C-53. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Both the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party put forward amendments in committee so that the precautionary principle would not be confined to a single clause of the bill—clause 23, if I am not mistaken—but would also be part of the preamble. We wanted the precautionary principle to become the cornerstone of pest control legislation in Canada.

The government steamroller operated in committee, as it has for many other bills. There was no infighting because the steamroller had paved the way. The amendments put forward by the member on my left, from the Progressive Conservative Party, were rejected. The New Democratic Party amendments were rejected. The Canadian Alliance party, to my right, had a completely different vision of pest control. It wanted more powers for the industry, because it feels that it is an industry.

If we want to protect the environment and public health, the precautionary principle must be part of more than just one clause in the bill. It must be included in the preamble, the law, and the regulations, which is not the case at present.

We are really disappointed with the government's attitude. The environment commissioner came before the committee to tell us that if Canada wants to meet its international commitments to the environment and sustainable development, it must do more than just settle for signing conventions, as it did with the Rio Convention in 1992. As we prepare, ten years post-Rio, to go to Johannesburg, the federal government is still refusing to include the precautionary principle in its legislation.

The commissioner was clear on this. If Canada wants to meet its international commitments, it must take steps to ensure that all its environmental legislation includes the precautionary principle. Unfortunately, this is not the case with this bill. The government rejected the amendments presented by the four opposition parties in this House.

We also feel that deadlines need to be imposed for the process of re-evaluation, although of course there are some set in the bill. But we never know when this will be over. As a result, there are still pesticides on the market that were evaluated years ago, up to 33 years ago. They are in the process of being re-evaluated, but the public still has access to them without necessarily having any information on their public health impact.

Those of us, the majority of us, in opposition believe that a date must be indicated by which re-evaluation will be terminated. This the government has refused to do.

As I have said, there will never be a real battle against pesticides if we choose to ban their use without developing any alternatives to the present use of pesticides on public and private property.

We on this side of the House believe that the government missed a golden opportunity to speed up the registration process for biopesticides. We should not talk only about pest control or pest management, but also about biopesticides.

As we know, in Canada there are only 30 biopesticides available on the market, compared to over 150 in the United States. If the government wants to come up with a true alternative to the pesticides that are currently being used by over 80% of the agricultural sector, why did it not speed up the registration process for biopesticides, particularly in the ornamental horticulture sector?

People from the ornamental horticulture sector came to both Quebec City and Ottawa and said that if there were alternatives, they would use them. They told us that they did not like using pesticides. The reason they do is because there are no alternatives.

So, we must speed up the registration process for biopesticides in Canada, so as to make up for the lost ground, because Canada is seriously lagging behind in this area. We also believed that a support program should be set up for farmers who want to stop using pesticides on their land.

Earlier, I said that agriculture accounts for 80% of the pesticides used in Canada and in Quebec. This is a significant critical mass. This is what, to some extent, ensures the industry's survival. We on this side of the House think that an incentive and support program must be set up for farmers who want to eliminate the use of pesticides and promote organic farming in Canada.

Why would Canada not have programs similar to those that exist in Europe?

In Europe they offer financial incentives to eliminate pesticides. They have programs to support organic farming, and technical programs to promote organic farming and offer competitive products. This is something the Canadian government refused to do and is still refusing to do, leaving us very disappointed.

If we are serious about protecting the environment and public health, the PMRA must do a better job. In this respect, the 1999 report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is very enlightening. She said that out of 500 active ingredients found in registered pesticides, over 300 were approved before 1981, and over 150 before 1960.

This means that there are still 150 active ingredients in approximately 6 000 pesticides available on the Canadian market. These pesticides were registered before 1960 without knowing what their true impact on public health and the environment was. There is obviously a problem with regard to registration.

Moreover, the commissioner said there was a blatant lack of re-evaluation programs. This is what she said:

In 1986, priorities for re-evaluation were developed by Agriculture Canada, which at that time was responsible for pesticides registration.

According to the PMRA, it is obvious that this delayed the implementation of re-evaluation programs. The commissioner believes that without efficient re-evaluation programs, there is no guarantee Canadians are not exposed to unacceptable risks.

This is the reality of pest control management in Canada, which is lagging far behind other countries.

The federal government wants to interfere in the area of health care and impose national standards while in its own areas of jurisdiction, areas under its own responsibility, it is unable to manage pest control in Canada to ensure that Canadians are not exposed to unacceptable risks.

This is a pretty damning observation by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. She tells us that an international benchmarking study commissioned by the PMRA ranked Canada behind the United States, the U.K. and Australia in the ratio of spending on re-evaluation of existing pesticides to spending on registration of new pesticides.

She indicates that in 1997-98, the government spent 25% more on re-evaluation activities than on the registration of new pesticides. She also tells us that few re-evaluations are undertaken in Canada and that the special review process is exceptional. Finally, she says that a clear process is lacking at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which should be developing and implementing a program to re-evaluate pesticides now registered for use in Canada.

In conclusion, we will be voting in favour of Bill C-53. I am my party's environment critic, and rare are the government bills which do not interfere in provincial jurisdiction. The endangered species legislation interfered directly in provincial jurisdiction through the introduction of a double safety net.

As for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, the former environment minister for Quebec, Pierre Paradis, decided in the early 1990's to denounce the earlier version of this bill, which we are now considering. He said “The government's approach when it comes to environmental assessment is completely unacceptable”.

Since then, Quebec has withdrawn from discussions on environmental assessment. Quebec has spoken with a single, unified voice on this, as well as endangered species. Incidentally, I see the sponsor of the Quebec legislation, Quebec's environment minister from 1989, in the government benches.

This government accepted provisions of the legislation that created a double safety net, which led to the situation where federal law applies in Quebec, but not Quebec legislation. We denounce this fact, because today, we are in the House with members of Robert Bourassa's cabinet. They voted for bills that cancel all of the work done under one administration, Bourassa's.

I am talking about the member for Bourassa and the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles. The latter was a minister in the Bourassa government. They voted for federal legislation that contained provisions that already existed in Quebec law.

In closing, we will be voting for the bill because we believe that registration and marketing come under federal jurisdiction. We believe that Bill C-53 is a step in the right direction, but I am not sure that it will really improve the registration and re-evaluation process.

The federal government needs to do some work on this. Furthermore, we believe that the sale and use of pesticides comes under provincial jurisdiction. Municipalities are in charge of enforcing standards, which I am thoroughly convinced will soon be accepted in Quebec, thanks to legislation. This is the model that we need to promote in Canada, which respects the different jurisdictions while protecting public health and the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-53, to amend the pesticides act.

For almost half an hour, perhaps 40 minutes, I will try to give the background of what the pesticides act was and of what we would wish for in a future pesticides act. I will, of course, talk about the harmful effects of the use of pesticides, both in Quebec and in Canada; about the current legislation, but also existing provincial legislation, particularly in Quebec; about the implementation of this legislation and about some recent supreme court decisions concerning, among other things, the Hudson bylaw on the use of pesticides. I will also talk about power sharing under the current constitution.

We know that the federal government can get involved in this area, and we have never challenged this. This is one of the reasons why we will vote for Bill C-53.

In Quebec, a task force looked at the issue. As a result, the Quebec minister of the environment is preparing a policy that can and must complement the current legislation and the changes that we are in the process of making.

I will also deal with the issue of the analyses done by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, on which my colleague from Jonquière sat and whose May 2000 report proposed certain avenues to the government regarding pesticides management, registration and use in Canada. In some respects—I will get back to this late—we feel the committee went a little bit too far in its proposals to ban and prohibit the cosmetic use of pesticides. However, some proposals that I pushed for and my colleague vigorously and steadfastly defended when she was on the committee are part of the report and have been a source of inspiration for us both in committee and here in the House as witnessed by the motions and amendment we put forward.

I will talk about the Cousineau discussion group in Quebec looking at the use of pesticides in urban areas, Bill C-53, the amendments put forward in committee and what we want as a model for pest control management. This is the proper term to use.

My first point will be the harmful effects of pesticide use. An increasing number of studies, both in the U.S. and in Canada, show that frequent pesticide use in urban areas, on private land and in agriculture has harmful effects, especially on children. This is one of the reasons why the government introduced this bill.

Several groups pointed it out to us. Even if the children are not affected in their physical development, we know that learning disabilities are frequently linked to the fact that some children grow in an environment where pesticides are used frequently. Several U.S. studies point to what has now become obvious. Moreover, groups specializing in early childhood development told us they wanted tests aimed at evaluating the impact of pesticides on children's learning disabilities to be taken into consideration when registering new pesticides and re-evaluating existing pesticides.

It has been proven that pesticide use has a major impact on pregnant women, infants and children. Thus, the object of Bill C-53 we are addressing today is, as its title would indicate, to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.

The pesticide industry in Canada is—and this is a very appropriate term—flourishing. Canadian sales are around $1.4 billion, and we are told that, in Quebec alone, half the lawns are treated with pesticides at this time. Pesticide use is, therefore, frequent. The figure given for Quebec alone in 1997 is 8,200 metric tonnes, with a major increase between 1990 and 1996, 60%, for ornamentals alone.

More than 300 kilos are used in public areas alone, that is parks and other public lands, in Montreal. We are told that 80% of pesticide use is agricultural.

This is, therefore, a flourishing industry, a major industry, so we must realize that we cannot just turn up with legislation without at the same time developing alternatives. If we want the public to make use of other solutions, other methods, they have to be made available.

It is wrong to think that a law banning pesticide use would be enough on its own to accomplish a real battle against pests in Quebec and in Canada. Alternatives must be made available so that the industry and the public can find effective solutions.

What we are engaged in today is not without importance. We are re-evaluating a law that has been around for 33 years. The year I was born, 1969, was when Canada enacted pesticide legislation. Thirty-three years later, here we are reviewing it. There has not been any abuse, but the time has come to review the legislation. We are dealing with 6,000 pesticides containing more than 500 active ingredients that were evaluated prior to 1980.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I wish to inform him that he still has nine minutes left in his speech when Bill C-53 resumes.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address some of the concerns the Canadian Alliance has with regard to Bill C-53, the pest control management legislation.

This is a very important bill and one which the committee worked on for a long time. It is important to many Canadians from different perspectives. The legislation has three main intentions. The Canadian Alliance generally supports those intentions to strengthen health and environmental protection; to make the registration system more transparent, which is very important; and to strengthen the post-registration control of pesticides. We agree with these.

The Canadian Alliance agrees that safety and environmental issues are very important to Canadians. Health and environmental concerns must be at the forefront of Canada's pesticide registration regime.

Bill C-53 looks at the ten times safety factor and the thousand times safety factor. Whatever the factors are and whatever decision making goes into the bill, we have to ensure they are based on science and not based on emotion, half truths or misinformation. We must have the facts before we make a decision. Once we have the facts it becomes easier to make a proper decision.

We welcome the formal commitment to protect the health of infants, children and pregnant women. This is a given in the bill.

One of the disappointments of Bill C-53 is the way it was brought into the House and how it went through committee. At the initial stages of discussion on how it should be brought into parliament it was felt there should be a joint committee of agriculture, perhaps international trade and health. We are dealing with an issue that goes across more boundaries than just health. It has significant implications for international trade and for the agricultural community. We had hoped that would have taken place at the beginning but because it did not, we see some flaws in the bill which need to be addressed.

This legislation has not been worked on since 1969, some 33 years ago. It is high time it was modernized and brought up to speed. It is very important to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts and entrench the current practices into law. It is important to account for the new developments in pesticide regulations around the world and to reflect the growing concern for the health of children and others.

Looking at the legislation from a farming or forestry perspective, agricultural practices have changed considerably in the last two decades. Agriculture is an industry that is evolving probably faster than many others. We are seeing a greater reduction in the use of pesticides in agriculture and for very good reasons. I have yet to meet a farmer who likes to use pesticides. Farmers use them as a tool to solve a problem they may have and they need to be competitive with our neighbours to the south and others around the world. It is very important to understand that fact as we look at Bill C-53.

Two amendments were put forward at committee with respect to the renewal period for this legislation. It was to be reviewed not in 33 years as was mistakenly done in the prior legislation, but in five years as stated in one amendment or 10 years as stated in another. The committee settled for seven years. That is okay. At least it is not 33 years. We know that in seven years there will be another review of the legislation.

What disturbed me and others on the committee is who would do the review. An amendment came out of committee stating that the legislation should go back to a House of Commons committee and not be sent on to the Senate. That was overturned by the minister. This legislation could be reviewed in seven years by an unelected, unaccountable arm of the Prime Minister and not by a committee of the House of Commons. We have great concerns with this. Is that a true review of a piece of legislation? The committee amendment was overturned by the minister and we have serious concerns about that.

We were pleased to get some amendments through at committee. One was the harmonization of pesticides and the review of pesticides from the OECD nations and other countries. Harmonization is very important in order to be competitive with some of our trading partners. This could avoid many of the costly duplications when pesticides are registered. Newer and safer products would get into our marketplace more quickly than in the past. Some products have been held up for as many as 20 years.

The inefficiencies in the PMRA absolutely need to be addressed.

There are many shortcomings in the bill. The preamble completely ignores the value of pesticides to Canadians

It is not that we put pesticides out for our health or because we are trying to do anything other than good for Canada. There is a lot of good that comes out of the use of pesticides. Unfortunately that is not recognized in the bill. It helps us to be competitive, although we do have to recognize that health and safety come first and on that we agree.

One issue we want to talk about is the minor use products. The bill makes no provisions for minor use products. It is something that we tried to get through. A minor use of a pesticide is defined as “a necessary use of a pesticide for which the anticipatedsales volume is not sufficient to persuade a manufacturer to register and sell the product inCanada”.

It is a product for which very few acres are involved. It is not really economical to go through the regime that we have right now. Yet it is very important that we see some of these products on the market because they are much safer and much better.

It impacts the horticultural sector, the producers of fruits, vegetables, herbs and floral crops. These are small in comparison with many other crops in the country but it is a $4.2 billion sector. It is one of our fastest growing agricultural sectors. It is also very important to the pulse crops sector, which grows peas, beans, lentils and chickpeas. These are small acreage crops but it is very important that they be competitive particularly with our American counterparts.

What actually is happening with our American counterparts is something we should consider so that we are on the same footing. It will give us an idea as to how slow we are in bringing forward different products.

In 2000-01 the total number of minor use products that were registered in Canada was 22. Eighteen were for food use and four were for non-food use. During that same period of time in the United States, 1,200 different products were approved, 500 plus of which were approved for food use.

The government does recognize the importance of minor use but it is not in the bill. That is one of the problems we have with this legislation. The PMRA doubled its resources recently in being able to evaluate minor use. We are hoping that something can be done perhaps in regulations, however it should be in the legislation that is before us. It is very important.

Given the evidence that we have, why did the government not recognize that? The government recognizes it as being valuable but not valuable enough to put in the bill. That is something which disturbs us.

We can also talk about the reduced risk products. The bill makes no provisions for getting newer, safer reduced risk products into the marketplace. We need to expedite the review of these products. My colleague mentioned that the United States has had reduced risk categories and timelines for the last year. The timeline to get these products registered was approximately 35% less than conventional pesticides.

It does not matter what one's perspective is on this legislation, whether one believes we should ban all pesticides, and there were people who said that at committee, or not, the idea of timeliness for approving newer and safer products in Canada is very important. It does not matter which side one is on. We put forward amendments suggesting that the minister at least come up with a timeline, perhaps within a year after the bill is enacted, so that the industry would know how long it would take to approve some of these products.

It is certainly something that would hold the PMRA accountable to Canadians and to what it is mandated to do. We heard from many witnesses about the PMRA. There is one thing that was consistent. Nobody said anything good about the quality of performance of the PMRA. It is something the bill should recognize and try to address as one of the concerns.

The agriculture committee looked at the efficiencies of the PMRA. It called for an independent ombudsman and for the auditor general to review that agency with a view to making it more efficient. We are pleased that cosmetic pesticides are left in the hands of local municipalities because Canada has many diverse problems in different areas. The problems in the Northwest Territories are different than those in southern Ontario. It is important that the responsibility be left with the municipalities.

It is important that we have the bill before us now. It is 30 years late, but it is here. It will ensure that farmers have access to newer and safer products. It will also ensure that Canadians have access to safe and reliable food at a competitive price.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was mentioning, although the Canadian Alliance supports the general intent of Bill C-53 the amendments should have reflected changes within the industry.

For a short time I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly when it has reviewed pest control products. The environment committee passed amendments requiring the act to be reviewed after seven years, but the government defeated the amendment that would have restricted review to Commons committees.

The Canadian Alliance amendment on harmonization passed through at committee stage. This means that under the bill applicants who apply to register pest control products or amend pest control product registrations would be able to submit information from reviews or evaluations conducted in other OECD countries if the product were to be used in Canada under conditions similar to those of the foreign countries where the evaluation was conducted.

The efficiency of the PMRA's registration operations has a direct impact on Canada's ability to remain competitive internationally. As I emphasized in my last speech, this could avoid costly duplication of pesticides for pesticide makers and hasten the process of getting newer and safer products onto the market.

We in the official opposition believe proven and sound science, domestically and internationally, should continue to be the cornerstone for debate. We also believe a clear understanding of environmental regulations and research responsibilities between federal and provincial governments and the private sector must be achieved. The precautionary principle is in the right place in the bill. We appreciate the government for that.

Bill C-53 would not impose a ban on the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. That is a concern because it would allow municipalities to maintain control over such decisions.

While the official opposition is supportive of developing and using proven alternatives in urban environments, we do not believe a moratorium on pest control products should be put in place before there is a substantial body of conclusive scientific evidence that unequivocally links such products to human disease or ill health. I have been in the pest control business for many years. My first degree was in agriculture. I know that without conclusive scientific research or evidence such a moratorium would not only not be useful. It would be counterproductive.

There are still many shortcomings in the bill which were not addressed at committee stage despite our best efforts. The preamble to the act needs to recognize: the use of pest control products that are beneficial to human health; the need for timely access to safe and effective pesticides; and the use of safe and effective pest control products which are essential to the competitiveness of agriculture, forestry and so on.

Bill C-53 contains no provisions for minor use pesticides. Economies do not support full registration of pest control products. It is important for Canadian competitiveness. Though the government recognizes the importance of minor use, concerns about access to minor use products featured prominently in the agricultural committee's recent “Report on the Registration of Pesticides and the Competitiveness of Canadian Farmers”. The report stated:

--Canadian farmers do not have access to the same safe and effective pest management tools as their competitors, particularly American producers.

Our American neighbours can use certain chemicals Canadian farmers cannot. When produce from the United States is brought into Canada for consumption it is therefore not only a health hazard. It puts Canadian farmers at a disadvantage.

The committee also called for the appointment of an adviser on matters pertaining to minor use pest control products to intervene in decisions and policies to facilitate activities relating to minor use products. The adviser's mandate should include a special focus on the harmonization issues with the United States, such as the equivalency of similar zone maps and the consideration of data that already exist in the OECD countries. The adviser should report to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Also, Canada's risk management practices should be aligned with those of our trading partners and through Canada's membership in organizations such as the OECD.

Bill C-53 makes no provision for getting new, safer or reduced risk products into the marketplace. There is a need to expedite reviews of such products. The United States has a reduced risk category and timeliness. Last year the timeline to get these products registered was approximately 35% less than conventional pesticides. That is where the efficiency is. Bill C-53 still lacks any mention of timeliness for registration, re-evaluation or even special reviews of pest control products.

A number of witnesses appeared before the health committee and testified that registrations are taking too long in comparison to the United States, our major agriculture trading competitor. The Canadian Alliance demanded the drawing up of timeliness in registration to within one year.

The health committee also heard concerns about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency from several witnesses. Administrative and management practices were repeatedly called into question.

We know these are the reasons our farmers' impatience and frustration persist.

Accordingly, independent ombudsmen can assist farmers as well as other stakeholders. The Auditor General of Canada can conduct value for money or performance auditing that will help the industry. It is vitally important that problems within the PMRA be resolved if worthy goals within Bill C-53 are to be realized.

Bill C-53 is only as good as the PMRA's ability to administer it. Unfortunately those concerns are not adequately addressed in the bill. Regrettably the government lacks balance and does little to promote partnership and understanding between stakeholders. It fails to recognize the tremendous efforts and success achieved by manufacturers and users of pesticides or pest control products to make the products as safe to human health and the environment as they are effective in controlling pests and protecting crops.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central 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.

Before I begin I want to acknowledge the hard work done by our senior health critic on the file, the hon. member for Yellowhead with whom I will be splitting my time.

Bill C-53 would replace the 33 year old Pest Control Products Act which is long past due. This primary legislation intends to control the import, manufacture, sale and use of all pesticides in Canada.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-53, the Pest Control Products Act.

The passing of this bill will enhance the government's protection of Canadians' health and their environment by minimizing risks posed by pest control products.

Enshrined in this legislation is the requirement to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts into the scientific assessment of pesticides. This includes additional safety factors to protect children, thereby helping to ensure that Canada's children are given special protection from health risks posed by pesticides.

These additional safety factors recognize that children are affected by pesticides in a way that is different from adults and are applied whenever children might be exposed to pesticides through food or residential uses.

Health protection will also be strengthened through C-53's requirement that aggregate exposure to pesticides and the cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way be assessed.

One of the most important amendments that was made to the bill was to ensure that these factors are considered when making registration decisions about all pesticides, not just those used on food. This bill states unequivocally that no pesticide may be used in Canada unless any associated risks to the environment have first been determined to fall within acceptable limits.

The term “environment”, defined broadly to be consistent with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, includes the components of the earth, all layers of the atmosphere, animals, plants and other living organisms. Environmental risks include the potential capacity of pesticides to do harm to ecosystems, species at risk and biological diversity.

Bill C-53 supports minimizing risks, not just keeping them within acceptable limits. A pesticide will not be registered if its value is determined to be unacceptable—that is, if it does not contribute to pest management in a positive way. The assessment of value, which includes the pesticide's efficacy, enables the lowest effective rate of the pesticide to the determined and it is only that lowest rate that is approved for use.

One of the most important features of this bill is to increase the Canadian public's access to information generated and held by the government.

When enacted, the new Pest Control Products Act will make Canada's pesticide regulatory system among the most transparent and open in the world. A public registry will be established that allows the public to have access to detailed evaluation reports on the risks and the value of registered pesticides. The public will also be allowed to view the confidential test data on which pesticide evaluations are based.

Bill C-53 will make it easier for Health Canada to share scientific studies on pesticides with other federal, provincial, territorial and international regulators and with health professionals.

Sharing studies with its international regulatory counterparts enhances the process for international harmonization, including joint reviews of pesticides. Joint reviews give Canadian growers equal access to newer, safer pesticides so they can be competitive in the marketplace, while helping to ensure that Canadians have a safe and abundant food supply.

International harmonization also contributes to risk reduction by speeding up the withdrawal of older, frequently more hazardous pesticides and expediting their replacement with pesticides that are safer and more compatible with the goals of sustainable pest management.

Bill C-53 will also strengthen the government's post-registration control of pesticides. This control is being enhanced, first, by requiring mandatory reporting of adverse effects.

A company that is applying to register a pesticide or one that has a registered pesticide will be obliged to report to the government any adverse effects produced by its product.

Failure to report adverse effects will be an offence under the legislation. When the government receives an adverse effects report, it will review the information and decide whether it should initiate a special review in order to determine if registration of the pesticide needs to be amended or cancelled so that health and environmental risks remain acceptable. Action can be taken right away to protect human health or the environment, if necessary.

The government's capacity to re-evaluate pesticides systematically is being strengthened, notably by requiring re-evaluations of pesticides to be done 15 years after they are registered.

It is also providing the minister with the authority to take action against registrants who fail to provide the data needed to conduct re-evaluations. Strengthened capacity to conduct re-evaluations will translate into better environmental protection. It will also translate into better health protection, notably for vulnerable populations such as children and seniors. The re-evaluation process will be similar to the processes used in the United States and Europe.

Finally, Bill C-53 brings federal pesticide legislation into line with contemporary standards regarding compliance. It provides clear rules and increased powers for Health Canada's inspectors. The bill also allows higher maximum penalties to be set when pesticides are not marketed or used in accordance with the law--up to $1 million or three years in jail for the most serious offences.

Having touched on the main thrusts of Bill C-53, I will now review the changes accepted by the Standing Committee on Health which have been reported back to the House. Under these amendments, the major elements of the bill are substantially unchanged. But in order to improve and refine these elements, significant amendments have been accepted. They reflect comments made by committee members, the debates in the House, and take into account comments made by numerous other Canadians in submissions before the committee.

To respond to concerns that the term “acceptable risk” was too vague, an interpretation of this term has been added to the legislation, “Acceptable risk” means that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to or use of a pesticide.

This level of precaution is the most stringent way to protect Canadians and their environment from the potential risks associated with pesticides.

By adding a definition of “formulant” and including this term in the definition of “pest control product”, the requirement to ensure that all ingredients of a pesticide are assessed has been clarified. As well, as I have already mentioned, consideration of aggregate exposure and cumulative effects that was already in the section on maximum residue limits has been added into the registration and re-evaluation sections of the bill. The committee also accepted the suggested amendment that information about adverse effects be included in the material available for Canadians to examine in the public registry.

An important objective of the bill is to minimize risks associated with pesticides, not just ensure that risks are acceptable. One way of doing this is to facilitate access to pesticides that pose lower risks that those already registered. To this end, an important amendment made to the bill was to add a provision to require the minister to expedite the evaluations of reduced risk pesticides. The new provision in the bill will ensure that this is given priority. Another amendment also clarified that the annual report to Parliament on administration of the act will include the status of registrations of lower risk pesticides.

Access to minor use pesticides by farmers and other users was another key area of discussion during the committee deliberations. A specific authority to make regulations respecting minor uses has now been incorporated in the bill.

Finally, a provision has been added to have the act reviewed by a parliamentary committee after seven years.

There are two areas that have received considerable attention: restricting the so-called “cosmetic use” of pesticides, and extending the precautionary principle to the registration of new pesticides. I would like to explain why amendments have not been made in these areas.

Some witnesses before the standing committee stated that the cosmetic use of pesticides should just be banned by the federal government. The fact is that all pesticides and their uses must be treated in the same way under federal law. They must all be subjected to rigorous scientific testing and the results must be critically evaluated using the latest risk assessment methods. The results of these risk assessments will be different for each pesticide and use. An outright ban on “cosmetic uses” of pesticides presupposes that they all cause unacceptable risks.

That is not the case. Since the PCPA is based primarily on the criminal law power, it would not be appropriate to make that use a crime if the risks posed by that use have been determined to be acceptable.

The preamble to Bill C-53 recognizes the interdependence of federal, provincial and territorial pest management regulatory systems and encourages respect for the responsibilities of each order of government.

Should provinces and municipalities, whose legislation is not based on the criminal power, want to further restrict the use of any pesticide, they may.

For example, provinces may have sensitive wetlands that need to be protected and they would restrict the pesticide from being used in that area. Or, citizens of a particular municipality may decide that they do not want to have a pesticide used in their community no matter how small the risks and they may persuade the municipal government to enact a by-law to that effect, if their municipality has been given such authority by the province.

In any case, access to new, safer pesticides and an active re-evaluation program for older pesticides will ensure that any pesticides registered at the federal level do not pose unacceptable risks, bearing in mind the very stringent interpretation of “acceptable risk” that has now been added to the bill. Priority has been given to re-evaluating all lawn pesticides.

Suggestions have been made to have broader incorporation of the precautionary principle in Bill C-53. It is already included in the section of the Bill that pertains to pesticides that are already registered and in use. The principle is stated there so that if threats of serious or irreversible harm are detected for a pesticide that is already registered, the government will not have to wait for full scientific certainty before taking cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation.

Use of the precautionary principle under these circumstances will enhance the government's capacity to act quickly when threats are detected.

The situation regarding the approval of new pesticides, that is those that are not already in use, is different. The Pest Control Products Act has as its fundamental approach the extremely rigorous assessments of pesticides before they are registered for sale or use in Canada.

As explained earlier, “acceptable risk” means that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health or the environment will result from use of the pesticide. Applying the precautionary principle based on a threat of serious or irreversible harm to the registration of new pesticides would actually weaken the standard set for safety, not strengthen it.

Registration decisions are based on whether or not exposure would be 100-1000 times lower than the level at which no adverse effects are shown. This is a more stringent test of safety than whether or not there are “threats of serious or irreversible damage”, which is the wording contained in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act's version of the precautionary principle and the one in this bill.

Pre-market assessment of pesticides means that Health Canada does not simply allow a pesticide to be used and then wait for evidence of harm, it exercises its authority to reduce risks before a pesticide ever reaches the market.

I would just like to note that the current Pest Control Products Act is 33 years old and Canadians are expecting the government to act to help protect their health and environment and ensure a safe and abundant food supply.

I ask everyone in the House who wishes to see an effective, modern and open pesticide regulatory system in Canada to support Bill C-53.

In closing, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Health for its careful assessment of this bill and for the amendment that have been made to further strengthen it. I believe that this bill represents a critically important step forward in our capacity to protect Canadians and their environment.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-53. The question is on Motion No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Order, please. The House was scheduled to proceed at this time to a deferred division on the report stage of Bill C-53. However, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 10, 2002, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[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”.

[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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Canadian Alliance Party does not like the big thumb of the federal government or getting involved in other jurisdictions. In this case I suppose it would be the big green thumb, which is in fact the trademark of the pesticide company in my neighbourhood that sprays lawns with chemicals to keep them green.

I would argue that it is a legitimate role of the federal government to try to set national standards. If we just leave it up to the municipalities to deal with it community by community, that is an exhausting and tedious process and we may not have buy-in from all communities. Some communities will choose to participate and some will not. It is a legitimate role for the federal government to try to lead by example and set national standards when it is in the national interest.

As to using far fewer chemicals, I do not think there is anybody here who would disagree with the idea that we should be using fewer chemicals in our agriculture and in our cosmetic use. We should be pouring less toxic substances into the biosphere, into the environment.

My only point, and the only reason I raised it briefly in my speech, is that I thought it should have been at least one of the tenets of the legislation. Or it should be a goal or a stated objective that the purpose of Bill C-53 is to try to minimize the use of pesticides in our ecosystem. I do not stand back or apologize for that. I believe in it strongly. Whether they are old chemicals, current chemicals, modern chemicals or good or bad chemicals, we should be striving to reduce the chemicals we pour into the ecosystem.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The hon. member says that some of us have yet to come out of the fog. Many have found their way into government, those fog sniffers of yore.

The failure to commit money for research into the long term effects of pesticides is a major shortcoming of Bill C-53, especially as it pertains to children and public education about the dangers of pesticides and support for alternatives. Chemical companies constantly advertise on television to use this or that product. If there are problems with pests, zap them with this or zap them with that. On one side in the media we are faced with a sales campaign promoting the further use of pesticides in our society. We in my party feel the government should have introduced a countervailing measure to mitigate that influence by telling the other side of the story. In other words, use a product if we have to but be aware of the dangers.

The NDP critic recommends that we oppose Bill C-53. We do not support Bill C-53 in its current configuration. Even though it is an improvement over the former Pest Control Products Act of 1969, the bill is still flawed and still fails to protect Canadians. It is not bold or courageous. It is not innovative or visionary. The bill is pedantic and rather sluggish in its tone and content.

Bill C-53 may bring up the standards somewhat close to U.S. standards, but it still falls way behind the European standards. It is not striving to achieve the best practices internationally, a favourite cliché. Let us scan the globe for the best practices and emulate them. It makes good sense. We have chosen to ignore the best practices in the world and instead have chosen to align ourselves with second, third or fourth rate practices such as we are finding in the American regulatory system.

The legislation is still an improvement over what we have, I grudgingly admit. However, it is not nearly as bold as it could have been if we really wanted to set some standards and show the world our concern about this issue.

Harmonization with U.S. regulations may have a dangerous effect in the long term because it will be harder for us to ultimately adopt the higher standards in the European model. Given the scientific evidence that exists, this legislation should have been much stronger in its efforts to protect human health and the environment.

I would like to recognize the contribution made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre on the Standing Committee on Health with regard to the bill. She points out that at least that committee is dealing with a piece of health legislation which, in the five years I have been a member of parliament, is a very scarce rarity. The House of Commons at least is dealing with an issue of preventive medicine. We support and encourage that.

We in the NDP are critical of the bill. We will be moving amendments to it. We hope we can convince the government side to entertain many of the issues we have raised.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-53. I note that Bill C-53 would replace the Pest Control Products Act of 1969. We do not have to do a lot of mental mathematics to realize that it has been over 33 years since this act has been revisited and revamped.

We all agree that the world has changed dramatically since 1969. It is overdue and welcome in many circles for us to be dealing with such a timely and topical bill.

I should note, and would be remiss not to, that the Liberal government first promised new legislation during the 1993 election campaign. It was the former health minister who promised the legislation by the year 2001. Some hon. members on the other side are seeing this as the fulfillment of an election campaign promise perhaps, albeit from the 1993 election campaign.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development produced a study to assist the Minister of Health in advising what type of legislation would be necessary to deal with the management and use of pesticides. It included an examination of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA.

We note that in putting forward Bill C-53 the primary objective is the protection of human health and the environment, and finding some balance where both of those issues can be addressed.

We will admit that Bill C-53 is much stronger than the current legislation. We are pleased to be able to take note of that. We feel there has been some balance struck among the interests of health, environmental concerns and the legitimate concerns of industry, many of which have been raised in the House during this debate.

Bill C-53 would seek to introduce the use of modern risk assessment practices. In other words the further consideration or the enhanced consideration of vulnerable populations such as children and the aggregate sum or the total exposed cumulative effect on children. Speaker after speaker have raised in the House, and we all agree, that children are especially vulnerable to the proliferation of chemical and pesticide use in our cities, even in industrial settings where there is overspray, and of being contaminated by farm practices.

It is something about which we have come to realize more and more only recently. I will give one example from my own experience. The hon. member for Winnipeg South will possibly remember this. There was a time in Winnipeg when we had DDT foggers going up and down the residential side streets and through the city parks late at night. What did we do as kids? The hon. member remembers very well. We used to ride our bikes behind the fogging truck because it was pretty neat to lose sight completely in such a dense fog of DDT haze mixed with diesel oil which in fact compounded the effect. This was our entertainment for the afternoon, following a truck full of poison.

Children do things like that. Children by their very nature play on the grass. Kids put things in their mouths. They pick things up from the ground and put them in their mouths. There has to be a growing recognition that the interests of children must be our primary consideration in any piece of legislation like this.

The other thing that has only been recognized recently is that we do not have to ingest these chemicals to be put at risk by them. Skin absorbs them; it acts like a sponge. This is something I know from my background in workplace safety and health in the labour movement. Exposure to chemicals and toxins need not be oral. One can ingest them by absorbing them through the skin. They work their way through the body and find a natural state of repose in the organs, in the liver, kidneys and pancreas. There they sit for many years. The cumulative effect, the total aggregate effect of chemicals on our bodies is something we are only just starting to recognize and realize.

Another thing happens. Not only is that chemical ingested through the skin and not only has it found a natural state of repose in the organs, but other chemicals come to join it there. Chemical A sits in the kidneys or the liver. Then chemical B is introduced to the kidneys or liver and a chemical reaction of those two things causes chemical C . We might begin with two benign chemicals but combine them and we could have a very toxic substance. This is a risk we are starting to recognize in people in the workplace and in children.

Another thing I would point out in the labour movement is that in the workplace there is what is called the walking wounded. A lot of poisoned people are wandering around out there with a ticking time bomb in their internal organs which may or may not cause complications later on.

In dealing with the bill as it pertains to children, there is something I noticed as a hockey dad. Both of my kids played hockey right up through the high school level. I noticed with my older boy that quite a number of kids carried ventilators for the treatment of asthma. A couple of kids on his team had to use puffers throughout the game.

By the time my younger boy went through the system six years later, kids eight and nine years old would sit on the bench waiting for their turn to play hockey and their puffers were lined up on the boards. I think seven out of fifteen kids on the roster had to use inhalers, all labelled and ready for use. When they came off the ice after their shift they had to use their ventilators. At the risk of sounding alarmist, I cannot help but think there is something fundamentally wrong with that picture when seven out of fifteen otherwise healthy young athletes are so affected by asthma that they have to use ventilators to finish a one hour hockey game.

I point those things out to stress that nothing short of making the best interests of children the absolute primary consideration would be satisfactory to me. I think we have matured in our treatment of this issue. I do not believe there is a member in the House who would not acknowledge and agree that a key provision is the protection of vulnerable populations, such as children, from the total aggregate and cumulative effects of unnecessary exposure to toxic pesticides.

The other thing the bill acknowledges is how necessary material safety data sheets are. The workplace hazardous materials information system legislation is now law in all workplaces across the country. Key and paramount in the WHMIS legislation is the right to know and the right to refuse. Workers have the right to know what chemicals they are working with and they have the right to refuse to handle them if they believe they pose a risk to their health and well-being.

There is that recognition in Bill C-53. It extends and extrapolates that basic human right, that we do not have to touch things we know to be harmful to us. However it does not address the issue I tried to outline, that we can have a perfectly benign chemical in one hand and another perfectly benign chemical in the other but when we combine the two in the Petri dish which is the body, there is that third chemical which can and does sometimes hurt us.

I have tried to be balanced in recognizing some of the advantages of Bill C-53. One of the concerns my party has regarding the bill is that the legislation is extremely vague. This has been a developing pattern in the pieces of legislation I have witnessed in the short time I have been a member of parliament. More and more there is very little binding teeth in the legislation and so much of the details are left to regulation. In other words, the details are in regulations that will not necessarily be dealt with in the House of Commons but will follow after to give meaning to the language in the legislation that we pass here.

Some of the issues that will have to be dealt with in regulation are the details and the timeline for the re-evaluation process. Another issue is the type of tests to be used in risk assessment. Those are critical issues which I think should be debated in the House of Commons. They will not be. They will be regulatory, not legislative.

Another concern is that the precautionary principle is not really enshrined as one of the basic principles of the bill, not even in the preamble, not even in the soft language that is often the preamble to legislation. We believe that in any environmental bill in this day and age or certainly in a bill related to health care, the precautionary principle must be one that is adopted as a basic premise, as one of the basic tenets. The pillars of anything we do must adhere to and stem from that precautionary principle. It is noticeably absent in the bill.

There is a failure in Bill C-53 to ban the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. We thought that the debate around pesticide use had matured to the point where we could accommodate this basic issue. More and more around the country we are hearing about municipalities taking that step. Maybe there are industrial uses and reasons from a health care point of view that pesticides are necessary. Surely they are not necessary to make lawns greener.

There is nothing more perverse than driving down a suburban street and seeing a beautiful expansive green lawn in front of a house with a sign that reads “Danger, do not play on this grass, toxic substances used”. There might as well be a skull and cross bones planted on that beautiful lawn if so much poison is applied that it is dangerous for a child or a dog to be exposed to it.

It would have been a bold and courageous step on the part of government if it had introduced legislation that would deal with banning the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. We are disappointed that Bill C-53 fails to do this. We certainly hope that our member on the health committee, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, will be able to introduce amendments that will be entertained favourably which might give us some satisfaction on those pressing issues.

We are also critical of Bill C-53 at the lack of a fast track registration process for lower risk products. There could be a graduated scale where lower risk products could be dealt with in a fast track registration process. That was raised early on in the debates and consultations surrounding the legislation, but we do not see that reflected in the bill.

There is really nothing in Bill C-53 that would reduce the number of pesticides being used. We would have thought that the bill could have been introduced with the preface that it is the intention of the government to gradually reduce the number of pesticides in circulation. That would have been a very good place to start. That does not seem to have been one of the objectives in Bill C-53. We would have thought that most Canadians would have welcomed and celebrated that.

Nothing in Bill C-53 would really give satisfaction to those who are interested in reducing the number of pesticides in circulation. It talks about further regulating this. It talks about ways to protect Canadians from harmful exposure, et cetera. However it really does not talk about minimizing or reducing the use of pesticides in general and it does not prevent Canadians from being exposed to the most harmful pesticides.

I will balance this off so that my speech is not entirely negative, but I have to share with the House that some of our concerns stem from the failure in Bill C-53 to require the labelling of all toxic formulants, contaminants and microcontaminants. We flag that as a criticism as well.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency was examined by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I noted earlier in my speech that this was done in May 2000, yet there is failure to set out the mandate of the pest management regulatory agency in Bill C-53. We are critical this basic recognition fails to show up in the bill. If we are going to rely on the regulatory agency for guidance, advice and direction in the future, then surely the mandate of the PMRA should have found its way into the bill.

Bill C-53 fails to commit money for research into the long term effects of pesticides. If our primary consideration is the best interests of children, we need to know more about that toxic soup I talked about. We need to know more about the long term effects of the liver becoming a repository for who knows how many different chemicals that get stirred around and mixed up and turned into yet another chemical, a brand new chemical compound for all we know. The long term effects of pesticides is not really known.

I shudder to think what it was like for me and the member for Winnipeg South cruising around on our bicycles behind that fogging truck full of DDT and 2,4-D. He and I seem to have survived to date, but I would not want to see what our organs look like through a fluoroscope. Our livers could look like whiffle balls for all we know.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for congratulating the Parti Quebecois and its minister, André Boisclair, particularly on an issue of such importance as pesticides and the environment.

It must be understood that the municipal level has full jurisdiction—as the hon. member pointed out—when the federal and provincial governments do not get involved, or when they do not have regulations in effect. Municipalities have been very successful in protecting their environment, particularly from pesticides used for so-called esthetic purposes.

Still, I would like to hear the hon. member's view on Bill C-53, which is silent on an improved registration process for less toxic pesticides. It must be understood that once the government gets involved with regulations, it prevents provinces and municipalities from regulating. So, there is some kind of a flaw here.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the registration process which, in my opinion, should clearly be a quick process or phase for less toxic pesticides. I would also like to hear her comments on the incentives that such a bill could include for farmers who, among others, use pesticides for industrial purposes.

As far as I am concerned, the government made a mistake by not including a process to encourage, through credits, the industry and those who use industrial pesticides to find alternatives more quickly.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to take part in this debate on Bill C-53.

As a number of members of the House are aware, I have introduced a bill on two occasions. The first bill was C-388 and it later bore the number C-267. This bill banned the use of pesticides for non-essential purposes.

The purpose of my private member's bill, which I am no longer able to sponsor, having been a parliamentary secretary since September 2001, is to place a moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides in the home and garden and on recreational facilities until scientific evidence that shows that such use is safe has been presented to parliament and concurred in by a parliamentary committee.

We will recall that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in May 2000 on the existing legislation on pesticide registration. One of the committee's recommendations was that the government should make major and serious changes to this legislation. The outcome of this we have before us in Bill C-53.

Bill C-53 is the new Pest Control Products Act that Canadians have been waiting for for a long time. Some would say too long. The purpose of the bill is to amend legislation that is already about thirty years old. The time had definitely come.

The House, through the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, has examined the issue of the use of pesticides to eliminate pests. As I have already mentioned, the committee's report, entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”, was tabled in May 2000. It is the result of a lengthy study and testimony from numerous people and experts who explained that the current legislation was outdated.

The committee made a number of recommendations, the first one being that the Minister of Health introduce new pesticide legislation as a top priority.

I am very pleased that our government, through the Minister of Health, heeded the main recommendation of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and introduced a bill.

However, like many of my colleagues, I have studied the bill. Analysis of Bill C-53 reveals that the main purpose of the bill is to prevent people and the environment from being subjected to unacceptable risks resulting from the use of pest control products. This fundamental question or risk assessment is based on the health assessment of children, pregnant women, seniors and, in some cases, the specific risk associated with an exposure ten times greater than the allowable levels.

This bill does contain good elements, such as setting up a public registry. This will guarantee the public access to health information. This is a step forward. This bill also allows for the protection of whistleblowers and information sharing between departments with respect to pesticides.

Another major step is being taken in that there is a provision to the effect that the burden of proof for the safety and value of a product is clearly on the registrant or applicant. This is also a step in the right direction and it is a very positive aspect of this bill.

However, Bill C-53 has a number of serious flaws, in my opinion. For example, the precautionary principle and its application are very restricted under this act. The preamble does not even mention it. If the government, and I am part of it, is serious about achieving the primary objective of Bill C-53, which is to prevent unacceptable risks for people and the environment from the use of pest control products, it is essential that the precautionary principle be included in all aspects of the decision making process.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommended, and I quote:

Appropriate preventive measures are to be taken where there is reason to believe that a pesticide is likely to cause harm, even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between the pesticide and its effects.

But there is not even a definition of an unacceptable or acceptable risk in the bill. I hope that when this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the committee and all members will take a very good look at the few flaws I have mentioned.

The implementation of this bill will depend on the subjective interpretation of this concept which, as I mentioned, is not defined. The precautionary principle is only applied in the proposed legislation in re-evaluation or special reviews. At an operational level, the precautionary principle must be used in all decisions respecting pest control products.

Another flaw is that there is no science based inherent toxicity criteria, that is, there is no threshold for endocrine destruction, neurotoxicity or carcinogenic content of a pesticide specified for testing of the products. There is no requirement to re-register or evaluate pesticides for use on GMOs, that is genetically modified organisms. This is a problem.

The committee recommended that the regulatory agency be expressly mandated under the new legislation, or under another bill, to inform and educate the public about the risks associated with the use of pesticides and the availability of less harmful alternatives. Attitudes about pesticide use must be changed through aggressive public education programs.

The regulatory agency should not be given the exclusive responsibility to carry this out given that many federal departments make vital contributions to public awareness raising. It should be spread throughout the system. Public education should be a key component of the legislation.

We also need a commitment in the bill to the pollution prevention principle. There is no substitution principle included in the bill, that is, a requirement to deregister older pesticides once newer and safer ones are registered.

I think that this is an oversight in the bill, which could be corrected when the committee examines it.

Transparency should be a part of any new legislation and any new regulatory process introduced by government. This is something Canadians in the third millennium want. They want a government which is accountable, which behaves in a transparent manner. I think that the issue of transparency should be addressed in this bill. As we can see, there is no requirement for a sales database.

There is no direct mechanism for submission of independent scientific findings, as requested by the committee. We asked for that as well. There is no requirement to establish a database on reported adverse effects.

There is no specific mention of the Pest Management Advisory Council and there is no requirement for harmonization between the protection of human health and the environment in order not to weaken Canadian standards.

I think that Bill C-53 is a clear improvement over what we have right now. One of the members across the way mentioned that the Supreme Court of Canada had handed down a ruling with respect to the town of Hudson, Quebec. I believe that this ruling also involved other municipalities in Quebec which had regulated the use of pesticides within their boundaries and, in certain cases, had prohibited the use of pesticides and chemical products for cosmetic purposes. Companies accused the municipality of exceeding its powers and took it to court.

In a decision handed down in June 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled very clearly that the federal government had jurisdiction over these matters, as do provincial and territorial governments. Municipalities have jurisdiction as well, provided that jurisdiction is not covered by the federal and provincial governments.

The Supreme Court of Canada went so far as to say that in today's reality there is more information available on how disruptive chemicals can be and how harmful to the health of our environment and our fellow citizens. As well, local governments are often in a better position to determine the needs of the population and the most effective means of ensuring their protection and of preserving or improving the environment in which their citizens live.

I was very pleased with this judgment. I have already met with several mayors and councillors of municipalities in order to encourage them to examine this matter and to pass bylaws on the use of pesticides in their municipalities. I must also congratulate the Government of Quebec, my government since I am a Quebecer, on the statements made by the minister, André Boisclair, on the Government of Quebec's intention to act on this matter. I am most pleased to hear this and am prepared to co-operate with my provincial government, because I feel this is a matter of vital importance.

If we want to have a healthy country a hundred years from now, we have to start right now taking care of the environment and of people's health. One very real way of doing so is to enact legislation that regulates the way pesticides and pest control products are used, particularly those manufactured from chemicals, based on the precautionary principle.

I will not take any more of the House's time. The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has done a good job. The outcome of that was its May 2000 report. The Minister of Health has done a good job as well. This is an excellent start, but once the standing committee has had the bill referred to it, I expect it to pay very serious attention to the comments, recommendations and suggestions originating with both sides of this House, in order to improve the bill and ensure that its objective of health and environmental protection is attained by the mechanisms contained in the bill, or to be added to it.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the other vice-chair of the environment committee it is my pleasure to speak to the bill.

As we have heard from my hon. colleague across the way, I was not part of the environment committee when Bill C-53 was discussed so I am not familiar with all the work put into it during that year. However I will add a few comments that might be helpful to the health committee as it looks at the bill.

My involvement with environmental issues dates back to my reading of Silent Spring , Rachel Carson's book that pushed into the forefront the issue of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on and the impacts they might have. In those days a lot of mistakes were made. A lot of chemicals were developed that were effective, but no one looked at what they might do to our water and wildlife down the road. No one looked at the cumulative effects they might have for future generations.

I am pleased this piece of legislation is being revised. As the hon. member across the way mentioned, it has not been updated since 1969. An awful lot has changed in the area of chemistry regarding what works, what does not work and all the problems I mentioned.

I recognize the pressure on farmers trying to make a living who have had to deal with low commodity prices, increased input costs and so many environmental concerns. Other legislation before the House, Bill C-15B, is causing major concern regarding the definition of animal and the rights animals should have. We are all against cruelty to animals. However by taking the issue to the extreme we could put an awful lot of pressure on our agriculture community. Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, could put even more pressure on farmers as it comes through the House later this week.

Now we are discussing pesticides. A lot of farmers are afraid the government will come after them and attack the very things that constitute their way of life and means of income. We want to make sure members of the farm community understand that Bill C-53 would not target them. It would simply modernize a piece of legislation that has not been touched since 1969. I know many farmers who do not like using chemicals. They would rather not have to use them. However using various fungicides, herbicides and pesticides is a matter of survival for them.

Bill C-53 says the federal government would not interfere in the urban use of pesticides. It would leave it to the municipalities. That is a wise decision. It would allow each city to listen to its grassroots and make its own decisions. The most important emphasis for the health committee will be to look at the effect pesticides would have on children, animals and people in the community.

The new farming methods depend fairly heavily on the use of new herbicides and pesticides. Direct seeding is very common across most of western Canada. Saving fuel, reducing CO

2

and preventing erosion are all important when it comes to the new farming techniques. The downside is that farmers are fairly dependent on herbicides and pesticides to keep down weeds, insects and so on.

There is the matter of the runoff of these chemicals into our dugouts, streams and lakes and the effects it might have. We need a full study of water and the implications of pesticide and herbicide use on our water supply. The government has talked but has come forward with very little action regarding the survey of water.

We need to understand our aquifers. We need to understand the environmental implications on a much bigger scale than we now do. That is in the realm of federal concern. The federal government needs to show the provinces it wants to work together to develop a water inventory which includes the runoff of chemicals into our water supply. We have gone far too long without doing adequate studies to know what this means.

As I mentioned, the technology has improved. The modernization of chemicals and use of safer chemicals is all part of the new R and D. Chemical companies know they must have safe products. Because we have had such outdated legislation Canada has been pretty lax in the use of new chemicals. Bill C-53 would move us along those lines.

As has been mentioned before, when an OECD country says a chemical is suspect because it does not do the job it is supposed to and has other effects, Canada will start to look at that. This is a positive move. We need to register these chemicals. We need to understand their implications. These are all positive aspects of Bill C-53.

A big concern I have and that our agriculture and health critics have spoken to is that we need to put this piece of legislation into committee where we can make amendments and so on. However I am a little tainted and unhappy because that is exactly what happened to Bill C-5. Government members, opposition members, environmentalists and so on all found fault with it. It went to committee. We worked for nine months to improve it. All members of the House worked hard and co-operatively on that piece of legislation.

When the government got the legislation back from committee it decided to reverse most of the amendments we had won in committee. If that is the sort of thing that happens with Bill C-53 I will question what the committee is doing or whether it is wasting its time with the amendments. I will get over it. However when I see something sent to committee and have great hopes for amendments, I hope the government will listen to the committee. Committees listen to hundreds of witnesses before making recommendations to make better pieces of legislation.

When we talk about pesticides we should also talk about labelling. All of us have experienced difficulties with labelling. Whether we spray a chemical on our lawn or on a bug we do not want in our roses, we sometimes have difficulty reading the labelling. I have always thought that needed a lot of improvement.

The labelling sometimes talks about the mixing of quantities but talks about spraying only one rose bush. This does not mean much to the user who may not be dealing with only one rose bush. Sometimes it is very unclear what one is supposed to do to safely use a chemical. Farmers have the same difficulty when mixing batches of pesticide. Clear labelling is needed. Anything the committee can do to improve labelling for the use of pesticides would help.

We need to speed up the registration process whether for drugs or the use of pesticides. We need to learn from others. We need to look at what the EU, the Americans and other countries are doing. We need to see why they are outlawing certain chemicals and bringing in new ones. Many new chemicals are cheaper, more effective and do a much better job. We need to be able to speed up the process. Again, I hope the committee deals with the issue of registration.

As I mentioned, the mandatory review of any chemical banned by an OECD country is a good move because it means those 50 some countries have done their research. If they find a reason to ban a certain chemical it is good to evaluate the information. However we want the evaluation to be based on sound science and not the whims or lobbying of chemical companies and agricultural groups. This is something the committee could amend and improve in Bill C-53.

When we put forward a piece of legislation like this we need to recognize that farmers are in competition with members of the European Union and their American colleagues, and that the competition is real. There is an awful lot of work we can do. As long as the committee is given the freedom to bring in the witnesses it wants and put forward the recommendations it wants, and as long as the government is committed to listening, we will go a long way toward having an improved piece of legislation.

As my party's agriculture and health critics have said, we will support this piece of legislation. We will take it to committee. We look forward to getting amendments with respect to labelling, use, evaluation and so on. Provided that all comes together, we look forward to supporting Bill C-53 when it comes to report stage and third reading.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I began my portion of the debate on this very important topic, I reminded members of the House and indeed Canadians who might have been watching, that the Pest Control Products Act was 30 years out of date.

The new PCPA that amends and would replace the Pest Control Products Act is a very important act and is long awaited. No doubt science has improved in the past 30 years as well as has our understanding of developing an appropriate regulatory regime. We are very pleased that the minister has brought this act forward.

I also identified a number of things in Bill C-53 that I supported. I would like to make an additional comment on this and that is there will be a mandatory special review of any pesticide that has been banned or voluntarily withdrawn by an OECD country as we recently saw in the United States. I identified a number of positive things in the act, and I want to remind members of the House and people watching that, less I be accused of being too cheery, I believe there are some shortcomings to Bill C-53; instances where the environment committee's recommendations are not reflected in the bill.

I am currently the government vice chair of the environment committee that undertook a one year study of pesticides and the regulatory regime in Canada around them. I am optimistic that the health committee can address some of these shortcomings, but I would like to focus on just a few now.

For example, the committee called for a clear and unequivocal statutory mandate to be given to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The PMRA, although currently not an arm's length agency, has all the attributes of one. We felt therefore, that clearly identifying the de facto decision maker would be an important step in making the regulatory process more open and transparent. This has not been done in Bill C-53. The agency is not even mentioned in the bill.

The committee also called for a clear definition and application of legislation of the so-called substitution principle as is used in Sweden's environmental code. This would require that older pesticides be replaced with newer, less toxic products and non-chemical alternatives as they became available. This has not been done.

While I am talking about principles, a popular theme these days, let me address the question of the precautionary principle. The committee recommended the precautionary principle be enshrined in the bill's preamble as it is in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or CEPA and this was not done.

The committee called for the precautionary principle to be enshrined in the bill's administrative section as it is in CEPA and this was not done. The committee also called for the precautionary principle to be enshrined in the operative sections. Under the bill, the minister may invoke the precautionary principle in the course of a re-evaluation or a special review. Unfortunately, it is not mentioned. At a minimum, and in the interests of cross-statute consistency, Bill C-53 should reflect CEPA in this matter. The result is a weak acknowledgment of the precautionary principle.

Finally, the committee recommended that the new legislation contain measures that would allow for the broadest public disclosure of information to the public similar to those requirements in sections 51 to 53 of CEPA. However sections 42 to 44 of the bill, which outline the proposed access to information, are not equivalent to the CEPA provisions. Again, for the sake of cross-statute consistency, this should be addressed.

The committee recommended that so-called confidential business information be narrowly defined in the new legislation to encompass only information that would be truly prejudicial to the financial or competitive interests of the person to whom it belongs. Unfortunately Bill C-53 uses too broad a definition. I hope this will be addressed when it moves to the health committee.

In closing, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the health committee in the weeks to come on this important legislation. During the environment committee's study of the pesticide regime I learned first-hand how passionately Canadians feel about the issue. I am optimistic that at the end of the day the minister and the government can deliver a modernized Pest Control Products Act that will protect the health of all Canadians, particularly children and other vulnerable groups.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, a fellow Saskatchewanian, upon her appointment as deputy House leader for the official opposition.

This afternoon we will be continuing with the debate on Bill C-15B, the legislation relating to cruelty to animals. When that is completed, I expect to move on to Bill C-15A, the legislation relating to pornography. If there is time after that, we will go on to Bill C-53, the pest control bill, followed by Bill S-40 respecting financial clearinghouses.

Tomorrow the business will be Bill C-43, the miscellaneous technical amendments legislation, followed by the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-33, the Nunavut legislation.

On Monday I would expect to begin the day with Bill C-53 but after 3 p.m. we will turn to Bill C-54 which relates to sports in Canada.

Commencing on Tuesday we will return to the report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

Pest Control Products Act

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I want to make a comment on the issue of DDT for the member of the Canadian Alliance who asked the member from the Bloc why he mentioned the issue. I think the issue of DDT is very informative in terms of what we are looking at with regard to the Pest Control Products Act.

First, in 1951 studies indicated issues with regard to human health. If I may share a personal anecdote with the House with regard to DDT, in 1951 my mother was carrying me. I was born in 1952. All members can do the math. I am getting very old now. In 1951, a year before I was born, studies showed that DDT was affecting human health in a negative way. DDT was not banned in Canada until 1978. In January 1978 my daughter was born. Here we have a situation where two generations have been affected by a chemical when it was understood that there were human health problems associated with the use of that chemical.

How does this relate to the Pest Control Products Act, an act that is 30 years out of date? When we talk about the kinds of pesticides and chemicals being used to control pests, yes, as the speaker from the Canadian Alliance said, there has been a new generation of pesticides, but there also is a huge proliferation of pesticides of which we have no understanding and no real knowledge in regard to some of the human health and ecological problems. As well, we have information on pesticides which we are not acting on.

Therefore I am pleased to rise in the House today and speak to this long awaited Bill C-53, the new pest control products act. Indeed, it is an act that many people have been anticipating for a long time. It will amend an act that is 30 years out of date. In May 2000, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in the House of Commons entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”. It was the result of a long study of the pesticide regime in Canada, during which the committee heard a great deal of disturbing testimony about life under the very outdated Pest Control Products Act.

The committee's first recommendation in the report was that the Minister of Health introduce new pesticide legislation as a matter of top priority. Despite the delay, I commend the minister for finally bringing forward Bill C-53. Canadians have been looking forward to the arrival of the bill for a long time.

More important, I congratulate the minister for what is in the bill. On a number of critical issues, the government clearly has listened to the testimony of witnesses and to the recommendations of the committee. The new PCPA strengthens our pesticide regime quite simply by bringing it up to date with modern science, with modern concerns about these products and with modern expectations of government transparency in the protection of human health and the environment.

What is to be applauded about the bill? There are a number of things. To begin, the emphasis of the standing committee's work was on vulnerable populations and, of those, especially children. As we heard over and over from witnesses, children are not little adults. They run a greater risk of exposure to pesticides because of specific characteristics of their physiology. They are developing organisms. For example, they drink more water and breathe more air per kilogram of body weight and thus can absorb larger quantities of pollutants present in the environment. Their diets are appreciably different, consisting largely of fruits, vegetables and mother's milk. They have habits like rolling about on the grass, and little kids like to eat dirt. Because of this, compared to adults, they are exposed to pesticides to a greater degree. For this reason, the committee was greatly concerned that a new pesticides bill grant legal recognition to vulnerable populations, including infants, children, aboriginal people, professional users of pesticides, people in poor health, pregnant women, seniors and others. I am pleased to note that it does.

In addition to recognizing vulnerable populations, the bill would apply margins of safety for protecting them. The U.S. food quality protection act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to use an additional safety factor of 10 when assessing the risks posed by the presence of a pesticide in the diet of children. There is no such legislative requirement in Canada under the current act. For this reason, the committee called for the use of an additional safety factor of 10 in determining the tolerance of pesticide residues in foodstuffs. This recommendation is addressed in the bill. However, I believe it requires clarity and perhaps some amendments to provide that clarity. I hope that the health committee will look at clause 11 very closely.

The bill also calls for a greater margin of safety in using pesticides around schools and homes, which is commendable. During its hearings, the environment committee heard alarming stories about the safety of workers handling pesticides. The committee agreed that such workers need the same level of protection now afforded to workers handling other hazardous substances. For this reason, it recommended that the new legislation ensure that pesticides meet the workplace hazardous materials information system requirements. Although the bill does not specifically mention WHMIS, I am pleased to note that it does include the ministerial requirement that a material safety data sheet for each product be provided to workplaces.

The committee was also greatly concerned about the state of product re-evaluation under the current act. Presently there is no timeframe for re-evaluating pesticide products. Re-evaluation ensures that product registrations are supported by up to date science. Not surprisingly, with no timelines we are far behind in reassessing them. Under Bill C-53 all pesticide products would be re-evaluated every 15 years. Unfortunately, there are no timelines associated with the completion of the process. Again, this is an area that I hope the health committee will address.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that when we continue debate on Bill C-53 I will be able to continue my presentation on these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie mentioned yesterday, I want to say at the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.

I also want to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, who just spoke. He was environment minister in Quebec. In many respects, I agree with what he said, particularly with regard to the number of years that we have been using pesticides and the impact they can have on human health.

We have been using pesticides for many years. We started using chemical pesticides 40 or 50 years ago perhaps. We have very little knowledge of the impact that these pesticides may have had on our lives, on the lives of our children and on the lives of the elderly, as the member pointed out.

He gave a very good example when he mentioned the use of DDT. Everyone will remember that 25 or 30 years ago, DDT was used on a large scale. Researchers found traces of that product in animals in Canada's and Quebec's far north. These animals were still carriers years after the use of DDT, a very common pesticide at one time, had stopped.

I clearly remember that in Quebec, before the introduction of Bacillus thuringiensis—which, incidentally, was developed by a Quebecer—highly toxic chemical pesticides were used in our forests to control pests such as the spruce budworm in New Brunswick and in other provinces. There was no real control over the spraying of that pesticide. It was sprayed all over our forests and even over inhabited areas. As a child, I was exposed to these highly toxic products before biological pesticides were developed. It happened in my province as well as in other Canadian provinces. I am sure that many people my age were affected by the chemical products that were used in those days.

So what is the purpose of this bill being introduced? This bill is to replace legislation that dates back to 1969. It is legislation that is now outdated and should have been replaced before now, given the environmental awareness that has developed in recent years, and our awareness of things that have been done and the impact pesticides can have on our lives, on the lives of our children and on our environment.

There is another element that I consider important. I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for fisheries and oceans. As such, I am fully aware that chemical pesticides used, which in most cases are not biodegradable, can be found in the environment, in streams and rivers, and ultimately, in the oceans. They can also be found in the food chain.

What are the consequences? Obviously, when fishing in a polluted ocean, the resource is polluted. If you eat what is caught in the ocean, you are ingesting a resource that is highly toxic.

At the present time, we do not know enough about the consequences of using this resource to be 100% reassured about what has taken place until now.

As I was saying, we obviously support Bill C-53 in principle, but we would like to see a number of amendments. We know that the bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

I will summarize, as my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie did yesterday, the main amendments to Bill C-53 that the Bloc Quebecois hopes to see.

The first amendment that we would like to see stems from the fact that Bill C-53 does nothing to speed up the registration process for less toxic pesticides. A focus group was set up in Quebec by Minister Boisclair last October.

In fact, this group wanted the registration of less toxic pesticides to be speeded up. The reason is quite simple. Currently, non organic pesticides are being used. It would be necessary for the government to invest into research and to foster the registration of less toxic pesticides, particularly organic ones. But it should also be cautious.

The government should foster the speeding up of registration, but in taking the precautionary principle into account, as my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie mentioned yesterday, and as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis said earlier. It seems to me that the precautionary principle is lacking, or at least not present enough in the bill before us. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis mentioned, this is an essential element, and we ask that the bill be changed, amended, improved. This opportunity to amend the bill would allow us, as a society, to have less toxic products that can be used in a much safer environment.

Second, the bill does not suggest any alternatives to current pesticides. As I indicated, we should have alternatives. Of course, the government can ask people to stop using specific pesticides, but it must at least provide alternatives. Alternatives are necessary, not only in terms of biopesticides, but also when it comes to agriculture; reference is made to organic agriculture. Since I represent a rural riding, I know full well that, in the industry, farmers are still using products that may be considered as highly toxic and that it is necessary to have some control on the way these products are used.

There is also another element that is close to my heart. I remember quite well that, in the last 20 or 30 years, when a highly toxic pesticide was banned in more advanced societies like Canada or the United States, the companies manufacturing these products would make them available in the third world. This may not have been taken into account in the bill, but it might be important to do so.

Today it would be necessary to consider that what is going on elsewhere in the world may have an impact on us, on our societies, in the long term. What goes on in the third world can have an important impact. If highly toxic products are used in the third world and end up on our market, then we will have a serious problem in the more or less long term.

As I said, this bill proposes no alternatives to the pesticides in current use, as was recommended in their respective reports by the focus group on the use of pesticides in urban areas I have already referred to—and will come back to later—created by the Quebec Minister of the Environment, and the Standing Committee on the Environment of the House of Commons.

In its report, the standing committee even recommended incentives be given for organic agriculture, as I have already mentioned, as well as sustainable pest control strategies. What does this mean? It means developing new approaches to controlling pests and stopping the use of highly toxic products which can be harmful to human health.

For example, as my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie pointed out yesterday, certain European countries offer financial incentives to encourage growers to eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, that is chemical fertilizers. Bill C-53 seems to have been completely stripped of any recognition of the importance of research and development of biopesticides.

We can hope that chemical pesticides, pesticides potentially hazardous to human health, will disappear, but there must be alternatives available, and research must be developed and encouraged if the process is to be speeded up.

Another thing that was recommended by the standing committee is for there to be a re-evaluation by the year 2006 of all pesticides that were registered prior to 1995. Once again, the bill seems not to have set a time limit for the re-evaluation of old pesticides. This is an important point.

Basically, even though we have a bill and are trying to replace pesticides said to pose health risks to humans, if we do not re-evaluate the pesticides that are being used, that were used in the past and that are still used today, it is obviously useless to try to go any further.

It is important to consider that we can already, through serious research, come to the conclusion that the pesticides that were in use 20 or 30 years ago—earlier, DDT was mentioned—can be considered as posing health risks to humans. We have a laboratory precisely because these pesticides were used for so many years that we can now evaluate them in a very real and serious fashion. When it comes to evaluating biopesticides, it is the same thing. We are told that it is always a matter of time, that it takes a lot of time to evaluate these products.

There is another important factor to consider in the bill and regarding which amendments are desirable. The bill includes what I would call a wish, in the form of a special protection for children, infants and pregnant women.

I find it hard to see how, through a bill such as this one, we could, without being specific, protect children and infants in a special way, considering that it is society as a whole that is affected by pesticides. In light of this, how can we single out infants, except when they are directly affected in their immediate environment by chemical pesticides or by pesticides that pose health risks?

Earlier, I discussed the position defined by Quebec, by the focus group set up by Minister Boisclair. This position goes much further than the bill before us. On October 15, Minister Boisclair announced the creation of the focus group on the use of pesticides in urban areas. The objective of the focus group was to identify possible solutions that would allow Quebecers to reduce their dependency on and the risks of exposure to these products, including those used to maintain lawns, for environmental horticulture and for extermination purposes, while developing a sense of responsibility among citizens.

A sense of responsibility is very important, and one of the aspects I wish to mention is developing people's sense of responsibility. This is an aspect which is very difficult to control, however. Developing people's sense of responsibility has to do with methods of pesticide use, with people using pesticides in their immediate environment, either on their lawn or on their fruit trees. People often have very little information about how these pesticides should be used. They use them any old way. Sometimes they may very well misuse products and not be aware of their possible hazards. Even if each of these products is very clearly labelled and the recommended use very clearly indicated, not everyone is an expert on pesticides and sometimes amounts can be considerably increased and pose a threat to human health.

Some fifty or so organizations and individuals presented briefs to the group formed by Minister Boisclair. Over half of these organizations, representing municipal government, the research, health and business sectors, and ecological groups, expressed their views during the four days of consultations held in January 2002.

The focus group and the people who presented briefs at the hearings made 15 major recommendations designed to considerably reduce the use of pesticides in urban areas.

But I would like to see this go a bit further than the urban setting. I would like to see rural areas included, because we are well aware that pesticides are also used in farming. They are not restricted to urban areas. They are also used in our towns, our villages and our countryside. I would like to see a broader approach taken and all of society made aware of the problem of using pesticides, which can be potentially dangerous to human health.

The first recommendation of the focus group is to ban pesticides, unless action levels have been reached or the survival of plants is being threatened, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier.

The group asked that this be done within a quite short deadline. This provision seems to be lacking in the bill. In the bill before us, it seems that the government does not wish to ban the use of pesticides in the more or less long term, among other places in urban centres, as other members have mentioned. These are pesticides that are used only for lawn and park improvement in cities.

We will have to raise people's awareness. We will have the raise the awareness of businesses that are using such pesticides. We will have to allow them to have access to organic pesticides and make them aware that the use of specific chemical non biodegradable pesticides may be harmful to human health, even to those who spray them, that is workers in these businesses. Consequently, it seems important to me that the government should try, through an amendment to the bill that will be sent to the Standing Committee on Health, to set a deadline to ensure that the use of potentially harmful chemical pesticides be banned in green spaces and on our lawns.

Other recommendations were made by Minister Boisclair's focus group on the use of pesticides, including environmental management training for those working around the public, such as lawn care businesses, those who sell pesticides, professionals who provide services or those who work in public areas, so they can give advice and set an example. Those who work in public areas include municipal employees.

Public information and education with regard to the risks associated with the use of pesticides, with regard to environmental management and with regard to alternative methods and products must be an important part of the bill. The public must be informed and educated on this issue as quickly as possible so that people become aware that the use of these products can be extremely harmful to their health and, in the long term, to human health and to the environment.

One wish expressed by the focus group, and it is something that I mentioned myself, is that alternative methods using less harmful products be made available. We cannot ask people to stop using pesticides if they do not have access to much less dangerous products that would therefore be less harmful to their health.

The focus group also wanted to see an adequate regulatory framework, including the adoption, in the near future, of a pesticide management code that could accelerate the implementation of environmental management.

Since I am running out of time, I will conclude by saying that we agree with the principle of the bill, but it needs to be amended to give it more teeth because, as it is now, it seems to be nothing more than a paper tiger.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a book entitled Our Stolen Future written in 1996 by three famous scientists: Theo Colborn, Diane Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers. It states:

Through the creation and release of billions of pounds of man-made chemicals over the past half century, we have been making broadscale changes to the Earth's atmosphere and even in the chemistry of our own bodies. Now, for example, with a stunning hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer and, it appears, the dramatic decline in human sperm counts, the results of this experiment are hitting home. From any perspective, these are two huge signals of trouble. The systems undermined are among those that make life possible. The magnitude of the damage that has already occurred should leave any thoughtful person profoundly shaken.

Theo Colborn appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during its review of pesticides. She urged us very strongly to review our legislation and to bring in better and improved legislation.

I would first like to commend the minister for bringing forward this new legislation which is, by any standard, an improvement on the existing one which goes back to 1969 and is therefore 33 years old.

I should mention that the process for managing and regulating pesticides goes back quite a long way.

The previous Conservative government produced a report that was known as the purple book. In October 1994, I was one of four parliamentary secretaries assigned to implement the recommendations in the purple book. One of the recommendations called for the establishment of a pest management agency, which is now called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, that would be transferred from the department of agriculture to the department of health in 1995.

After the environment and sustainable development committee held hearings over many months, it made recommendations in a report produced on May 16, 2000 entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice”.

I would like to take a minute to congratulate my colleague from Davenport who was chair of the committee at the time. The committee did very deep study on a critical issue for all of us concerned with human health and the environment. It was a groundbreaking report that led to the introduction of this legislation, which thankfully follows many of the recommendations contained in the report.

We can see many improvements reflected in the recommendations from the report. The bill's primary objective is to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products. The critical question of assessment of risk is based on the consideration of children's health, pregnant women, seniors and, in certain cases, of special risk in a safety margin 10 times greater than would otherwise be predicated.

The bill provides for a public registry which is a good start to giving the public access to health information. Whistleblower protection is provided in a meaningful way. There is the possibility of sharing information among government departments, a question which was raised by the commissioner for sustainable development who had strongly criticized the government for lack of communication among its departments with regard to pesticides. The bill provides for the burden of proof for the safety and value of the product to be clearly on the registrant or applicant, which is a big step forward.

As my colleagues have stated, there is room for a lot of improvement. I say this constructively hoping that when the bill reaches the health committee much improvement will occur and it will be treated in a very constructive manner by the government in addressing the question.

Let us look at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which licenses and re-evaluates pesticides so they can be sold to the public. No statutory mandate in the legislation is given to the PMRA. All responsibilities and obligations fall on the Minister of Health.

In 1995 the PMRA was established as an administrative branch within Health Canada. We need to create an arm's-length agency. As we recommended, the PMRA should be accountable to parliament. The committee report gives the example of the patent office which is an agency set up within a department but given a full statutory mandate.

The committee also recommended a very clear mission for the PMRA. It recommended that it give absolute priority to the protection of human health and the environment when considering whether to approve a pesticide for use in Canada or allow its continued use. The committee recommended that it promote the use of sustainable pest management strategies that seek to reduce use, risk and reliance on pesticides. It emphasized the development of safer pest control products and to inform and educate the public about pesticides and the risks associated with their use. No such provisions are contained in the law and they are in my view essential.

My colleague from Davenport referred to the precautionary principle and its narrow application to the act. There is no mention of it in the preamble and there is a narrow application in the legislation itself. It is essential that the new act implement the precautionary approach in all aspects of decision making. Mrs. Barbara McElgunn of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada made the following statement at one of our hearings:

Critical to this issue is the fact that for the majority of priority chemicals or for important new innovations, there exists very little, or no, human health safety data. Many decisions on chemical safety have been taken on very limited toxicological data re their safety to developing organ systems, i.e. children. It takes many years to obtain these data. Under current law and policy in Canada, it takes many more years to develop regulations to protect public health and the environment. Therefore, under the Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Principle, the health and safety of Canadians is placed in a “Catch-22” situation, that says, “We must have strong scientific evidence before precautionary action can be taken--but we don't have that exact evidence, and therefore we cannot use the precautionary principle to act in a timely and protective manner

This is why we need the precautionary principle which Canada endorsed way back in 1992 at Rio in all facets of this legislation. The definition in the proposed legislation falls short of what the committee recommended and short of international standards. The committee recommended the following clause:

Appropriate preventive measures are to be taken where there is reason to believe that a pesticide is likely to cause harm, even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between the pesticide and its effects.

There is no definition of acceptable or unacceptable risk in the bill. In fact the whole purpose of the bill is to avoid an unacceptable risk. The implementation of the bill would depend on the subjective interpretation of this concept, which is not defined. The precautionary principle is only applied in the proposed legislation in re-evaluation or special reviews. At an operation level the precautionary principle must be used in all decisions respecting pest control products.

There is no requirement to consider aggregate and cumulative exposure. The committee addressed at length that the minister shall consider available information on aggregate and cumulative exposure when determining maximum residue only. That is not sufficient.

There is no science based inherent toxicity criteria, that is, there is no threshold for endocrine destruction, neurotoxicity or carcinogenic content of a pesticide specified for testing of the products. There is no requirement to re-register or evaluate pesticide for use on GMOs.

Another issue that the committee dealt with was an educational mandate. I remember legislation I passed in Quebec, in 1987, where one of the central features was an educational mandate. Without educating the public at large or the people who use pesticides, farmers and others, we will never change attitudes toward pesticides. We had a system where CEGEPs and schools gave instruction on pesticides and changed attitudes in the public mind.

The committee recommended that PMRA be expressly mandated under the new legislation to inform and educate the public about the risks associated with the use of pesticides and the availability of less harmful alternatives. Attitudes about pesticide use must be changed through aggressive public education programs. PMRA should not be given the exclusive responsibility to carry this out given that many federal departments make vital contributions to public awareness raising. It should be spread throughout the system. Public education should be a key mandate of the legislation.

We need a commitment in the bill to the pollution prevention principle. There is no substitution principle included in the bill, that is, a requirement to deregister older pesticides once newer and safer ones are registered.

There is a lack of consideration given in the bill to alternatives, to the essential need to use alternatives when they are available and use them on a fast-track basis. Track 1 toxic substances of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are not explicitly disallowed, again a breach of committee recommendations.

There is no requirement to obtain information or to evaluate registered formulants and contaminants. There are no requirements either for the establishment of a government-use database or to develop reduction plans. There is no phase-out of cosmetic pesticides as referred to by my colleague from Davenport.

I will address the question of transparency under the bill. The need to involve Canadians in the decision making process and to inform them about pesticide use in the environment is clearly evident in the amount of attention this issue has garnered in the press and in the public forum for several years now. The key to fostering public confidence in pest management is to develop an open and transparent system. Canada does not have a tradition of allowing the public to act as a watchdog to the extent the U.S. does now. We have many lessons to learn from our American neighbours in enabling public participation in decision making.

That includes access to what we call CBI, confidential business information. Yesterday, the minister stated:

Confidential business information will be defined very narrowly in Bill C-53 and will include only financial information, manufacturing processes and formula ingredients that are not of health or environmental concern. This means that the identity and concentration of formulas that are of health or environmental concern will not be held in confidence and can in fact be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets and through the public registry.

That is a good step forward but it falls far short. The restrictions on CBI should be much tighter. For example, there is no definition of what financial information should be protected. Knowing how wily industry is on all these issues it will find a way to make confidential what the public wants to be transparent.

It is my hope that the details of this legislation will be examined closely by the Standing Committee on Health. What constitutes confidential business information is broadly defined in the bill in that the person who is providing the information decides if the information is CBI or not.

Another point regarding transparency is that there is no requirement for a sales database, for which we had asked. There is no direct mechanism for submission of independent scientific findings. We asked for that as well. There is no requirement to establish a database on reported adverse effects. There is no specific mention of the Pest Management Advisory Council. There is no requirement for harmonization between the protection of human health and the environment in order not to weaken Canadian standards.

Nicholas Ashford, a professor of technology and policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology warned us in 1996 of the most serious environmental problem facing industrialized countries today. He is known for his work on the theory of multiple chemical sensitivity, MCS. He was one of the first to suggest that people who become sensitized by exposure to one form of contamination are much more liable to be affected by a whole range of other pollutants, including detergents, traffic fumes and tobacco smoke. He gave many examples.

Theo Colborn and her colleagues stated that only after DDT had been spread as liberally as talcum powder across the face of this earth did we realize that DDT brought death to wildlife, but in a different way. She added that when concerns emerged about the persistence of DDT and its impact on wildlife, regulators imposed controls on less persistent compounds such as methoxychlor and we now know that the same chemical which is still in wide use disrupts hormones.

We have gone from one pesticide to another, from one chemical to another, producing more millions of chemicals and pesticides all over the world and spreading them all over our earth thinking that each new one is better than the other and we will be safe. Yet we are finding out time and again that what we judge safer this time is found to be toxic and dangerous to human health and the environment, especially for children, seniors and pregnant women.

We owe it to ourselves to accept the bill as a big improvement on the previous legislation, but to also ask the minister constructively to allow the committee on health to look at the improvements we have all suggested and make the bill into leading legislation for the federal government. This is my strong hope.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the Minister of Health for her speech yesterday and particularly for what she said at the outset:

--the purpose of federal pest management regulation is to protect Canadians and their environment from the risks associated with pesticides.

She went on to say:

The proposed new PCPA would ensure Canada's children and other vulnerable populations were given special protection from the health risks posed by pesticides. It would do so by enshrining in legislation the requirement to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts--

She also said:

It is important to keep in mind why we regulate pesticides. We do so for a variety of reasons including the following: Some pesticides may pose risks to people and the environment; many pesticides are released into the environment; our exposure to many pesticides is involuntary; and redressing harm from pesticide exposure is generally difficult.

Human exposure can occur when pesticides such as those used in agriculture, forestry, lawn and garden care, and on golf courses are released into the environment where people may be exposed to them involuntarily. In addition, since pesticides are often applied to crops and livestock we may be exposed to their residues involuntarily through the food we eat.

It would be an understatement to say that the bill is long overdue. It amends legislation passed in 1969. It is therefore highly welcome, badly needed and most appreciated by anyone concerned with public health as affected by pesticides.

Before going into the pros and cons of the bill, it would seem desirable to say a couple of words about its title. The official title of the bill is “an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests”. However, the short title of the bill is same as the title of the legislation it is supposed to replace, namely “pest control products act”.

It would seem to me that to continue with the use of the old term, pest control products act, would mean adopting an industry oriented title, not a publicly oriented one as the full title conveys. If the intent of the bill is truly to protect human health and welfare, then this contradiction in titles should be corrected.

An appropriate short title might read “an act on the use of pesticides” or “an act on dangerous substances used to control pests” or simply, “the pesticides licensing act”. Instead, what is being proposed is a short title with a focus on pest control products and as such, it sounds pretty good to consumers. After all, who could be against the control of pests? To conclude, the long title is good, but the short title leaves much to be desired.

Bill C-53 has been in the making for some time. In its report on pesticides, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made many recommendations, some of which appear to have gone unnoticed. I will mention some shortly but first I have a few words on the new and positive features of the bill before us today.

First, human health and the environment, as other members have commented before me, are now leading principles of the proposed legislation.

Second, in evaluating the health and environmental risks of pesticides, the minister must now apply appropriate margins of safety for pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors and must apply a margin of safety 10 times greater than now if a product is to be used around homes or schools.

Third, in determining maximum residue limits in foods, the law will require the use of an additional safety factor of 10 in determining the tolerance of pesticide residue in foodstuffs.

It will require the application of appropriate margins of safety for pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors. It will require the implementation of government policy as defined in the toxic substances management policy, which I am told does include track one toxic substances under CEPA. Finally, it will require the application of such government policy through sections 7(8) and 19(3).

Fourth, pest control products must now meet the requirements of the workplace hazardous materials information system. This insertion is in answer to many interventions, including the one by the member for Ottawa West when we were in committee.

Fifth, there is a very narrow application of the precautionary principle. For instance, the minister may cancel or amend the registration of a pest control product if, in the course of a re-evaluation or a special review, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the cancellation or amendment is necessary to deal with a situation that endangers human health or safety or the environment.

Sixth, as to the re-evaluation of existing pesticides, with this bill all pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years, which is not as good as the recommendation made in committee which suggested that by the year 2006, if I remember correctly. The term in the special review will be mandatory for any pesticide banned or restricted by an OECD country, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.

These positive features tell us that the government recognizes the fact that pesticides, euphemistically called pest control products, are highly dangerous substances which should be used rarely and with extreme care. Otherwise how could one explain the symbol of the skull and crossbones used to identify most pesticides, softened in its impact by the intensive advertising campaign by pesticide manufacturers who find it necessary to try to convince the public that everything is fine with pesticides? For instance, in the mollifying ads promoting lawn beautification the word pesticides never appears. What we are treated to are bucolic green lawns, happy children playing and pets frolicking in a sea of perfectly uniform green blades of grass.

It should also be noted that in its attempt to dominate the market, industry avoids the word pesticides and instead uses intriguing, scientific sounding formulas like 2,4-D or other fancy abbreviations intended to reassure the potential consumer of chemicals about using pesticides on his or her front yard lawn. Fortunately, municipalities have not been bamboozled by the pesticide industry's public relations campaign. Today over 30 municipalities have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property and in some cases on public property.

All this is after prolonged and extensive legal battles which peaked last June when the Supreme Court of Canada hit the pesticide industry on the head and gave it a lesson in constitutional law. The court declared that yes, municipalities do have the power to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and that yes, the public interest can and should be served by municipal governments.

Before leaving the subject, I would like to pay a warm tribute to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine for her bill on banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. The bill was unanimously adopted at the last national convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, the cosmetic use of pesticides is not mentioned in Bill C-53, one of several shortcomings which of course could be corrected in committee by way of appropriate amendments.

There are other serious shortcomings in Bill C-53 which I would like to bring to the attention of the House.

There is no statutory mandate and responsibility given to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which makes it a rather unique feature in the government structure.

There is no inclusion of the substitution principle, therefore no requirement to deregister older pesticides once newer, safer products are registered and brought to market.

There is a very narrow application of the precautionary principle. Why is it applied only at the consultation or amendment stage of the registration of a pesticide and not right at the beginning of the process, namely when deciding whether to register it or not? That is the question. It would make enormous sense to apply the precautionary principle all the way through as it was already advocated yesterday, if I remember correctly, by the member for Rosemont--Petite--Patrie.

There is no definition of acceptable or unacceptable risk and that is also a very serious matter which needs to be brought to the attention of members.

There is no requirement to take into account aggregate and cumulative exposure when registering a product. Time and again witnesses at committee hearings brought this to our attention, particularly the Canadian Institute of Child Health and other organizations concerned with the health of children.

There is no room for independent scientific findings which could be followed by mandatory feedback. Let us be realistic. Only so much can be achieved through public consultations and comments on decisions. More needs to be done in the public interest.

There is the matter of what constitutes confidential business information and that matter remains the same in this bill as in the 1969 legislation. It seems to me that surely there are situations when the public good can be of greater importance than confidential business information, or am I living on another planet?

Another shortcoming is the fact that the bill focuses only on the active ingredients of a pesticide but not on ingredients that can pose a threat to human health and the environment and are not necessarily active.

Finally, and this may be a budgetary requirement and not necessarily a legislative one, there is a need also identified by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for better statistics on pesticides, be it their sales or other related data. There is indeed an important challenge here for Statistics Canada.

As others have already outlined, Bill C-53 is definitely an improvement over the 1969 legislation. It should however be stronger in ensuring a healthy and safe environment for Canadians. The bill relies too heavily on product, product management and product regulation, and too little on the reduction in the use of, the reliance on and the risks posed by pesticides. That in a nutshell would be my way of assessing the bill.

It is my sincere hope that colleagues on the health committee will be able to address these shortcomings and amend the bill, which is quite possible at the committee stage, as members present have experienced.

To conclude, it seems to me that the Canadian population can expect a law which will give full and unconditional precedence to human health and the environment over pesticides and the very powerful industrial interests behind them.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate at long last in this evening's debate. In my view and the view of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada Bill C-53 represents a lack of political will to bring forth the legislation we need to address the issue.

The framework legislation that currently manages pesticides was established in 1969. Over the past 30 years we have gained a more comprehensive knowledge of the effects of pesticides on human health and the environment. It is in good form for us to update legislation of that vintage.

I compliment the new minister who has been in the portfolio only a short time. The issue has been a thorn in the side of health care professionals, environmentalists and concerned Canadians from coast to coast for quite some time. Our hats are off to the minister for tabling this piece of legislation.

I am a bit concerned about the issue. A few weeks back I sent out a press release asking why the bill was being tabled at that time. Was it because of the myriad rumours we had heard in the House and in the hallways that the House could prorogue? It is reasonable to ask whether it is a disingenuous effort to table a bill that will never see the light of day in terms of royal assent. On the positive side, perhaps it gives the government a chance to test the legislation to see what benefits there should be.

I will refer to one aspect of the pesticide debate. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you read the Progressive Conservative Party's platform comprehensively throughout the election campaign of November 2000. I will bring to light a plank of our electoral platform. We called on the Government of Canada to bring in modernized pesticide management. There were two main points in the platform concerning pesticides. I will read them for the record:

A Progressive Conservative government would table new pesticide legislation that would modernize the existing 30 year-old legislation. Exposure levels and toxicity of pesticides will be evaluated with consideration on the effect on our most vulnerable populations.

This refers to the elderly, children and pregnant women. We would also establish a comprehensive reduced reliance program. The platform states:

A Progressive Conservative government would initiate educational initiatives to inform Canadians of the risks of pesticide use with a goal to reduce usage particularly for cosmetic purposes.

For the record, that is a goal the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has had with respect to this debate.

I will illustrate how lax the government has been at tabling legislation. I asked the Minister of Health in December of 1999 when we could expect legislation given that Claire Franklin, chair of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, had said draft legislation had been in place for three years and was coming soon. I asked again on November 22, 1999. The Minister of Health said legislation would be tabled shortly. I asked again on June 13, 2001, nine months ago. The government said it would soon table legislation that would reflect the recommendations and protect the health of Canadians.

We have been a little slow at this, so to make up for the government's lack of energy in getting the legislation tabled perhaps we can put our shoulders to the wheel and make some improvements.

I will speak to the bill itself. There are some solid aspects to Bill C-53 that deserve the appropriate accolades. One is Bill C-53 clearly places the burden of proof on the person who is trying to register the particular pesticide. The applicant must demonstrate to the minister that the health and environmental risks of that product are indeed acceptable to the Canadian public at large. We think that is a positive step.

It follows the report of the committee that was developed in May 2000 entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”. That was a comprehensive study by the standing committee on the environment of which I had the privilege of being a member.

Accolades to the government for being inspired by the United States food quality protection act. The government has said that when it comes to establishing toxicity levels, testing will be done on vulnerable populations, children, the elderly and perhaps pregnant women, as we advocated in our last platform. The act also enables the application of a 10-fold safety margin on pesticide standards and extra protection for children.

I think the government was also inspired by the report of the standing committee which was tabled in 2000. That plank was recommended by all parties with the exception of the Reform Party at that time.

I also would like to provide some accolades on the issue that re-evaluations are required and special reviews are made possible. Most of the pesticides currently used in Canada were registered long ago. The act requires that the Government of Canada establish or initiate re-evaluations of registered pesticides at least every 15 years. Further, if a member country of the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation Development, bans the use of an active ingredient, then the minister must conduct an immediate special review. That is a good thing.

I do not know if members particularly recall that the auditor general performed a comprehensive review of pesticide management in Canada. He pointed out that Canada was among the most lax of industrialized nations. As a testament to that, Canada and the Slovak Republic are the only two OECD countries that do not measure pesticide consumption. This is fundamentally important because further decisions would eventually include consideration of cumulative effects and aggregate exposures once the methods of doing so were confirmed.

That is the methodology the Government of Canada wants to follow, which follows the same train of thought that is in the U.S. food quality protection act. If that is so, then we need to ensure that we have a proper inventory of consumption of pesticides in the country. That makes a lot of sense.

If that re-evaluation will be a component of the act, then we need to ensure that Health Canada has the added financial capacity to conduct those reviews and do them in an extremely timely manner.

I would also like to touch on a few aspects that need some improvement. Some of those issues refer to the aspect that the law in its current form does not emphasize that it is necessary for us to reduce the reliance of the risk of pesticides. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to educate the Canadian public at large, in particular on the cosmetic use of pesticides. There is indeed a cumulative effect and additional exposure and prolonged exposure does have a detrimental effect to human health and the environment

If that is true, then why does the federal government not initiate a public awareness campaign about the harmful and cumulative effects of pesticides, particularly in our urban areas, in the same stead that it does with anti-tobacco campaigns. In my view this is something that would at least ensure that Canadians think twice. That is one aspect for which we should find an innovative way of encompassing it in this legislation, perhaps in the preamble.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada believes that Bill C-53 fails to entrench the precautionary principle as a guiding principle or to effectively operationalize it. The bill needs to be amended to include the internationally acceptable precautionary principle in the preamble and purpose.

There is an accepted definition established at the United Nations for the precautionary principle. The all party committee called on the Government of Canada to utilize that form of definition. We reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was the intent of the committee when we tabled the review in May 2000 on pesticide management in Canada that it was a process that the Government of Canada absolutely needed to follow.

What is the precautionary principle? I would explain it as follows. If the weight of evidence and science says that there is an immense likelihood that a particular substance can have a detrimental effect on human health and the environment, perhaps potentially the loss of life, we do not have to wait for the absolute finality of information before the Government of Canada actually acts.

When it comes to public awareness the leadership on reducing the reliance on the cosmetic use of pesticides has not come from the federal government. I believe we should follow a public awareness campaign as we do for the use of tobacco by encouraging individuals to reduce their reliance on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

We have seen leadership from the provinces on some occasions but for the most part we have seen leadership at the municipal level. Cities, such as Halifax, and communities such as Hudson, Quebec were really the first municipalities to step up to this challenge.

We have public awareness advocates from coast to coast. Patty Donovan from Quispamsis in my riding of Fundy--Royal has been an ardent advocate for the reduction of pesticide use in Canada and particularly the cosmetic use. It is not some mission or crusade that she is on. For her it is the very vitality of her son Zack. If Zack were exposed in any kind of serious way to pesticides or pesticide residue it would have an immense effect on his human health immediately that may potentially cost him his life.

This is a clear indication that we need to manage pesticides in a responsible way and take into consideration where individuals could be at risk.

We see pesticide campaigns in the west as well. Jennifer Wright from Calgary has made a number of presentations to the municipality of Calgary encouraging it to reduce its reliance on pesticides.

Canadians and municipalities are way ahead of this and the Government of Canada should get with the program on that particular aspect as well.

Another good aspect of this proposed legislation which needs a bit of ratcheting deals with the pesticide management process. It must come out of the dark ages and recognize that public awareness and access to information is critical and that public consultation should be sought prior to registering any new substance. The Government of Canada has done a good thing on that particular aspect as well. It must ensure that we catch up with the rest of the industrialized world.

I have a document before me which was produced in September 2000. It is not even a comprehensive list. There is a list of 60 pesticides that are banned by other OECD nations but are still permissible here in Canada.

The problem is that the Government of Canada is not taking leadership in addressing this issue. Clearly, within the agricultural community pesticides are a responsible component to farming, but we need to ensure that access is available to lower risk substances. We should utilize substances that are already used in the OECD and which may be more cost effective. We have been denying our farming community access to these lower risk substances. We are putting the health of farmers at risk by leaving them with only products that are high risk to themselves, to human health in general and to the environment.

I must emphasize that any new pesticide legislation has to evaluate toxicity on the most vulnerable in our population: children, pregnant women and the elderly. The Government of Canada has moved in that direction. That is a step we should applaud.

When evaluating a pesticide, we need to ensure that we evaluate the formulants as well. Quite often the formulants in the pesticide can have a more detrimental effect as a toxin to human health and the environment than the active ingredient. As the legislation is shaped at the moment there is not the appropriate due process that challenges the proponent of a new pesticide, or an existing pesticide if it is at the re-evaluation stage, to ensure that all active ingredients are evaluated as well.

Our very learned health critic, the member for Richmond--Arthabaska, has recommended to me that the Progressive Conservative Party will support the legislation. It is long overdue. Sometimes that line seems extremely trite, but the existing act is 30 years old.

The Government of Canada spoke about this in its throne speech in 1999, three years ago. When something is in a throne speech it usually means that action will take place immediately and we are only seeing the legislation now. This is respectable framework legislation which we hope to have the capacity to improve at committee stage.

I am very pleased the Liberal Party of Canada has taken a page, page 25 to be exact, out of the election platform of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It has followed our commitment to Canadians to provide pesticide legislation which includes evaluation for toxicity of formulants, evaluates the toxicity on the most vulnerable in our population and updates the current regime which is nearly 30 years old.

I look forward to the debate as the bill moves through the legislative process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-53, an act protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests. This bill, more than 60 pages in length, was designed to improve a statute that dates back some 33 years, believe it or not.

Since I have been given 40 minutes, I will try to summarize our party's position, with four points.

I shall begin by outlining the current situation regarding pest control in Quebec and Canada. Then I will quote some of the recommendations from the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment—the Chair of which I now see opposite—the report on pesticides published in May, 2000. Third, I will discuss a recent report submitted to Quebec's minister of the environment on March 27, by the focus group on the use of pesticides in urban areas. I will also discuss the 1999 report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Finally, I will outline our position on Bill C-53.

First I would like to say that my party believes Bill C-53 to be a step in the right direction. It was time, as I will demonstrate later, that this statute dating back to 1969, and therefore close to 33 years old, be renewed. We believe there should have been legislation to improve the current law. As such, it is a step in the right direction, as I said, but naturally, we fundamentally believe that there needs to be improvements.

The precautionary principle must prevail at all stages of the study of this bill, including the examination by the Standing Committee on Health that I plan on taking part in, as well as during every opportunity given to parliamentarians to study this bill.

Second, we recognize that public health risks, especially those involving children, nursing infants and pregnant women, must be given special attention. We recognize that exposure to pesticides, especially the active ingredients found in pesticides, has a significant impact on public health. This might seem ridiculously obvious, but I believe that it is important that our first premise establish this as a priority.

As far as jurisdiction is concerned, jurisdiction over pesticides appears to be divided. The federal government has responsibility for the legislation relating to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA.

The purpose of this agency is to administer the Pest Control Products Act and to facilitate safe access to methods of pest control, while reducing hazards. The federal legislation controls the certification, marketing and labelling standards for products. At the present time, there are more than 6,000 certified products on the market and these contain more than 500 registered active ingredients. This is where the hitch comes in.

Until now, very little effort has been made as far as the mission and objectives of the Canadian legislation are concerned. Very little effort has been made by the agency precisely to make available products that are safe. I use that word because that is the very objective of the agency. When we come a little later on to look at the report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, we will see that there are grounds for concern as far as reassessing the entire matter of products on the market which contain active ingredients is concerned.

There is one other aspect. As I said, the purpose of the PMRA is to ensure the availability of safe products on the market. It therefore has a certain responsibility as far as products containing biopesticides are concerned, products with the potential to be an alternative solution.

We must acknowledge that there are alternative products available on the market, the biopesticides. Unfortunately, however, their availability is very limited. At this time, only 30 biopesticides are available on the Canadian market, whereas there are in excess of 150 in the United States.

Not only is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency not involved in the reassessment of currently available pesticides, it is also not fulfilling its responsibility to provide alternatives to traditional pesticides on the market. Finally, under the federal legislation, the agency must monitor labelling standards for products.

Let us take a look at what I would call the federal problem. It exists because the current act dates back to 1969. The existing rules and standards are obsolete in many respects. In its current form, the act may be considered a danger to public health. In a few minutes, I will quote some comments made in 1999 by the environmental commissioner. These comments are disturbing to say the least, when we look at products currently on the market, in terms of their safety for women, children and infants.

For example, the problem with some pesticides that are currently on the market has to do with the active ingredients that they contain. There are 500 active ingredients in the pesticides currently available on the market. Believe it or not but, out of these 500 active ingredients, 300 were approved before 1981, and more than 150 were approved before 1960.

This means that there are currently on the market pesticides that are sold to the public, even though they contain active ingredients that were assessed based on standards that were often far from those that are now deemed acceptable, both from a scientific and a public health point of view. This is all the more reason to act quickly.This is also why we believe that the existing pest control legislation had to be reassessed, redefined and updated, since public health is at stake. We must act in the best interests of Canadians.

Let us not forget—since I am dealing with jurisdictions—that pesticides are a shared jurisdiction. The federal government has a responsibility, but so do the provinces. I should point out that Quebec has had its own pesticide legislation since 1987. The purpose of this act is to avoid and reduce threats to the environment and public health.

The primary responsibility is to develop public awareness through sustained campaigns on the dangers related to the use of pesticides. Second, we must support municipalities and organizations and, third, the government must fund research and development on alternatives, including biopesticides.

The government of Quebec supported establishing a pesticide management code that would govern the entire process, from pesticide production to the sale and storage of pesticides.

Another aspect concerns municipalities. In recent years, the responsibilities of municipalities for pesticide management and control have increased. Why? Because following a ruling by various tribunals in Quebec and based on supreme court decisions regarding the passing by the municipality of Hudson of a bylaw prohibiting the use of pesticides, certain courts in Quebec ruled in favour of the municipality of Hudson in its decision to ban the use of pesticides.

In recent years, the authority municipalities have to establish regulatory codes has increased. Under the Cities and Towns Act, municipalities may regulate and prohibit the use of pesticides. As a result, we have seen, and will continue to see municipalities pass regulations prohibiting the use of pesticides in the coming months and years.

In response to these court decisions and to Quebec's tendency to reduce and ban the use of pesticides, the government established a committee, a focus group that submitted its recommendations to the environment minister on March 27. The committee's main recommendation was to develop a management code to govern all activities involving pesticides.

It is important to recall that this work and this bill were not dreamed up overnight. Here in the House, and more particularly, within the Standing Committee on the Environment, there was a great deal of thought given to this important phenomenon involving the use of pesticides and their impact on health. In its recommendations made in May, 2000, the committee urged and proposed that the new act establish human health and the environment as priorities by creating databases on the sale of pesticides, their adverse effects, and alternatives to pesticides.

One could even go so far as to say that the bill fulfills these expectations. The problem lies with the committee's second recommendation, the most important one, which would have made it possible to ensure that, by a specific deadline, the use of pesticides could be phased out in Canada. I am referring to Recommendation No. 2, in which the committee recommended, in May 2000, that pesticides used for cosmetic purposes be phased out within five years.

We can clearly see, and the government must also admit this, that there is nothing in the bill, which we are studying today and which we are going to study in committee, that sets any kind of deadline with respect to the non-use and elimination of pesticides.

We on this side of the House are very disappointed. Not only was this the position of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, but it was also one of the recommendations in the May 27 report by Quebec's task force on the use of pesticides in urban areas, i.e. that the use of pesticides in public areas be phased out over a period of three years.

Quebec's task force goes even further than the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The committee and Quebec's task force, which is chaired by Mr. Cousineau, an MNA, feel that we should phase out the use of pesticides in urban areas over three years.

When we look at this bill and see that there is no indication of any intention to phase out the use of pesticides at all, let alone over five years, we are rather disappointed. The House can rest assured that we will fight hard in committee to keep this bill. The government's tendency is to renew the legislation approximately every 33 years. We must be more vigilant than ever and ensure that this five-year phase out becomes law.

The standing committee on the environment made various recommendations. One of these was that the sole mandate of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency should be to protect health and the environment.

In the committee's opinion, PMRA should not also be responsible for encouraging the competitiveness of the agricultural, farming and manufacturing sectors. It felt that there should be an open and transparent process in order to build the public's trust in pest management, and that the new legislation should make it a condition of registration that applicants carry out ongoing monitoring after registration and that existing pesticides be re-assessed.

Once again, with all the measures proposed by the committee, there is no deadline set for re-evaluating these old pesticides. There is no deadline for the conditions for authorizing any pesticide. So we are in the most total vacuum possible.

Yes, this is a step in the right direction with the new process we want to put in place, but there are never any clear indications of the deadlines for attaining these objectives, whereas it would have been simpler to make provision for this, to say: we want pesticide use eliminated within five years, or three. But no, there is no measure relating to this, which is somewhat of a disappointment.

I have already referred to the Groupe de réflexion sur les pesticides en milieu urbain, whose report was released this past March 27. The federal government, as a government with a desire to work in collaboration with the provinces, could have waited for that March 27 report, having waited 33 years already to introduce an amended act. But no, they had to decide to move on it a few months ahead of time. I should remind hon. members that the decision was made last October 25 by the Quebec Minister of the Environment, André Boisclair, to mandate this task force on the use of pesticides in urban areas.

The task force met with more than 50 organizations or individuals who had submitted briefs. These came from health, environmental, ecology, business and municipal backgrounds. We are of the opinion that we are bringing to this House the Quebec consensus reached by that task force, which was struck last October 25 and whose report was released on March 27.

The task force addressed this issue, and set out its objective as follows:

The objective is to identify avenues for solution which will enable Quebecers to reduce their dependency on, and the risk of exposure to, these products which are in common use in lawn care, ornamental horticulture and extermination.

The task force has indeed managed to come up with alternative solutions and an approach to true pest control in Quebec.

This report, on which the committee held hearings in January, contained a certain number of recommendations. There were 15 recommendations. The task force's first recommendation serves as a main underlying theme. We must quickly reduce the use of pesticides in urban areas. This is the main them underlying the task force's recommendations.

The task force made 15 recommendations. First, it proposed banning the use of pesticides in public and municipal green spaces and in schools and daycare centres in three years' time. Therefore, the recommendations involve prohibiting the use of pesticides on lawns in three years, and on shrubs in five years. So, the shorter deadline is three years, and the longer deadline for public green spaces, whether they be parks, daycare centres, schools and all public green spaces, is five years.

Another recommendation consists of training stakeholders in environmental management. People must be made aware that the use of pesticides constitutes a threat to public health. If we start from the premise, as I stated at the beginning of my presentation, that the precautionary principle should guide all of our thoughts and actions, stakeholders need to be made aware of risks, and trained, whether they work in ornamentals or horticulture, as municipal employees, or in maintenance. They must be educated about the dangers of pesticides.

The task force recommends establishing a training program that would lead to a vocational diploma in the field to raise awareness among pesticide users, the stakeholders themselves.

Third, more emphasis should be placed on making alternative methods and less dangerous products available. If we set deadlines banning the use of pesticides, as we want to do, then we need to work now on making biopesticides, or alternative solutions available. So, we need to increase the availability of alternative solutions, in order to allow us to reach these same quality of life objectives down the line, using a very different approach.

Another issue is the establishment of a pesticide management code. In my opinion, this is probably, along with banning the use of pesticides within three years, the strongest recommendation of the task force. It is proposed to put in place a pesticide management code that would set standards regarding the sale, storage and use of pesticides. Why? Because, among other reasons, the rulings made by Quebec courts now give municipalities the option of regulating the use of pesticides.

Therefore, we believe that we must have regulations and legislation based on the same standard, and establish a single standard. What is being proposed is a Quebec management standard that would be put forward by this pesticide management code. In my opinion, this is probably the strongest recommendation.

The fourth point that I wish to raise is the issue of the environmental commissioner.

In 1999, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a very eloquent report on how the federal government manages the certification process for pesticides and their reassessment. The commissioner passed rather harsh judgment on the government's way of managing pesticides.

He emphasized the significant lack of reassessment programs. Moreover, he noted that Canada was seriously lagging behind other countries, including the United States, and that the percentage of expenditures allocated for the reassessment of pesticide certification, and also for the whole assessment process of pesticides, was very low compared to that of some other countries. The commissioner also said that pesticide reassessments were a rarity in Canada, something which is very worrisome from a public health standpoint. Again, the reassessment of pesticides is rarely done in Canada.

I remind the House that of the 500 active ingredients in the pesticides, 300 were approved before 1981 and over 150 before 1960, according to the environmental commissioner's last report submitted in 1999. In terms of public health standards, pesticides are now available on the market and have been evaluated on the basis of standards which I consider outdated, or which should at least be re-evaluated.

So, not only are re-evaluations rare, but there is a lack of transparency in the process on the part of this government.

Before continuing, I wish to cite four passages from the environmental commissioner's 1999 report. The first has to do with available re-evaluation programs:

The absence of an effective re-evaluation program means there is no assurance that Canadians are not being exposed to unacceptable risk.

This is what the environmental commissioner wrote in 1999. There is no assurance that Canadians are not being exposed to unacceptable risk. Here is another quote:

We are particularly concerned by the lack of clarity about the role of federal science-based departments [in the re-evaluation of pesticides].

This is from the 1999 report by the environmental commissioner. Here is the third quote:

Many pesticides were approved when the standards were much less stringent than they are today.

Again, this is taken from the 1999 environmental commissioner's report. I will give one final quote, although I could give many more:

We found Canada's track record to be one of inaction and unfulfilled commitments.

This is the fourth quote from the environmental commissioner. According to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Canada has not done its work and, 33 years later, he is proposing a remodeled, redefined act which could meet the expectations of Quebec's task force on the use of pesticides in urban areas, which could provide a satisfactory response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, which has examined this issue, which could respond to the expectations of environmental groups on this issue, and which could, above all, respond to the need of Quebecers and of Canadians to be protected from a public health point of view so that the precautionary principle is first and foremost.

As for Bill C-53, the purpose of which is to update the regulations governing the use of pesticides in order to protect the health of children and others, the government says it has adjusted its proposals in the light of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

If the government really wanted to provide a proper response and to adjust the present legislation to reflect the recommendations, it would call for elimination of pesticides over five years, as the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has proposed, or it would propose, in keeping with the Quebec task force's suggestion, their elimination over three years. We are, however, forced to admit there are no such measures within the bill we are examining at this time.

We are disappointed because we believe that the principle of precaution ought to take precedence over any other as far as examination of this bill is concerned, not solely commercial and economic ones. The government must not be influenced by major pesticide producers but must instead put the health of Quebecers and Canadians first.

We are disappointed because we had thought there would be elimination over five years in response to the committee's demands. Disappointed as well, because we see there is no measure whatsoever that will speed up the certification process for less harmful pesticides. Nor is there any deadline for the accreditation of biopesticides.

Need I remind hon. members that an effective battle against pest control products requires alternative solutions? These will, of necessity, require the availability of biopesticides and pesticides that are less of a public health hazard.

I would like to quote some figures. In Canada at the present time, there are a mere 35 biopesticides on the market, under 150 brand names, while in the U.S. there are 175 different biopesticides marketed under 700 brand names.

What we want to see in this bill—and we will be presenting amendments in proper form in committee when the time comes—is that this battle against pests will involve speedier certification of biopesticides. There is no sign of this in the bill as presented by the minister.

A second aspect we also find disappointing is that it contains nothing in connection with the proposed use of less harmful products. I have already referred to the biopesticides but there are other more environmentally friendly solutions available in modern societies, as I hardly need remind the government.

Why would the government not have taken the time to develop legislation containing incentives to organic agriculture? Why not include in this bill incentives aimed at a real sustainable pest control strategy? Why has Canada not looked at what is being done in Europe and taken its inspiration from European countries that offer financial incentives to farmers to eliminate pesticides and synthetic fertilizers?

There is nothing in this bill to provide for alternative measures. There is nothing to provide for financial incentives for farmers to eliminate the use of pesticides. This bill does nothing to promote organic farming, it is as though it were a concept that was a surprise from a Cracker Jack box, and the government was suddenly made aware that it exists. This bill could quite easily have included measures to promote organic farming.

A fourth aspect proposed by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and that we would like to see included in this bill, involves the re-evaluation between now and 2006 of all pesticides registered prior to 1995. This bill does make an attempt to re-evaluate pesticides.

Yes, there are some measures to accelerate the registration of some older pesticides, but there is still no deadline, no specific timeframe, which is what the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development had wanted, to re-evaluate all pesticides registered prior to 1995 by the year 2006. It is not simply a matter of reassessing the 500 active ingredients contained in pesticides, it needs to be done in a realistic timeframe that also allows for the protection of public health.

The committee examined this issue and heard from young people, from children. They were victims of pesticide use in certain municipalities of West Montreal. On some golf courses, dangerous pesticides were used; had these pesticides been re-evaluated, some of today's victims might have been spared. One had to have sat on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to understand the impact of the use of these harmful products on the public health of citizens.

We must ensure that all products currently being sold on the market are re-evaluated based on adequate and modern standards by 2006. This is how we can truly provide pest control.

Another aspect to consider is the concept of special protection for children and infants. We are trying to understand, and we will be making presentations in committee on this concept of special protection for children and infants. I thought this was included in the bill. We will therefore have questions on this concept of special protection for children.

I will conclude by saying that Canadians, but also Canadian businesses, those who use pesticides every day, are prepared to go along with the committee's recommendation, which is a five-year phase out. By way of example, I will simply mention the Fédération de l'horticulture ornementale du Quebec, which said it would agree to use pesticides as little as possible, provided that alternative products were available. Civil society in Quebec and in Canada is prepared to engage in this effort, to phase out pesticides, provided that alternatives are available.

These alternatives require two things: first, faster registration of Canadian biopesticides—there is no need for us to trail behind the Americans—and, second, the introduction of a sustainable development strategy for pest control. Among other things, this will require development of organic farming through financial incentives.

I will have an opportunity to debate this bill in committee, in the hope that the government will respond satisfactorily to the needs and expectations of Quebecers and Canadians, of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and of Quebec's task force on pesticides in urban areas.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to this important piece of new legislation. It is a remarkable piece of legislation and important to all Canadians.

We are all concerned with the environment, our health and safety and what we are doing to our environment, whether it is air pollution, our water supply, or what the person next door is doing. As our population grows Canada and nations around the world become challenged in some ways.

Bill C-53 deals with some of the things we are doing with pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. There is an overwhelming desire for consumers to understand and discern exactly what is happening to the environment. It is important for them to understand what is involved with the use of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides. To that end this is an important piece of legislation and comes at a time of tremendous interest by the population.

I am a farmer and come from a farming background so I have some personal experience with working with pesticides. There is not a farmer I know who really enjoys working with pesticides. It is something we do as a matter of practice because they are a tool that is available for us to efficiently and effectively look after our lands in the most effective way possible

When dealing with pesticides we must realize that there is a need to respect the dangers as well as the benefits of their use. There are a tremendous number of benefits but there are perhaps some fears and other things that we should be cautious about.

One of the things we need to be cautious of when we are dealing with pesticides is their application outside of the agricultural community. We need to be cautious of their use in urban settings where pregnant women and children can be affected. We must be concerned about how these pesticides are applied. It is fair to say that some of them are perhaps applied too rigorously in those situations.

We must recognize the value of herbicides in our society and in our agricultural community. As farmers use herbicides they need to till their soil far less and this results in less air pollution. Diesel tractors go up and down the fields far less times, some say 7 to 10 times less, because of some of the pesticide uses today than compared to what has been practiced before. There is much less soil erosion. Pesticides are able to restore soil and farmers are able to utilize their soil more because they do not have to work the land so much.

There is more moisture conservation. We hear of a fear of global warming and the lack of moisture allowing farmers to grow crops and yet with the use of pesticides a tremendous amount of moisture is conserved to sustain agriculture in areas that would never possibly have been sustained before.

Agricultural efficiency has enhanced tremendously because of the use of herbicides and pesticides. Chemicals are tools that protect the environment from being overrun by pests from other countries which come in all the time and are difficult to control. We have herbicides for different foliage and weeds that come in from around the world and it is a way of keeping them in balance. If we never had pesticides we would have a very difficult time dealing with that problem.

Recently I have seen many advancements in safer chemicals. There is much less residue in herbicides used today than what was used back in the sixties when the first piece of legislation came to be. It is important that we discern and understand the new technologies coming in and take advantage of some of that technology, but at the same time we must be careful to think of the safety and health of our society. Our number one overwhelming responsibility is to look after the people we serve.

I make these personal remarks because of my understanding of where agriculture is at and what I sense as being some of the problems with the application of pesticides. I also have a primary hat that I would like to wear today as the senior opposition health critic.

The Canadian Alliance would generally support the intent of health and safety in the bill but we must be cautious listening to the minister's remarks. We will be interested in getting this to committee where we can take a good look at exactly how this piece of legislation would be applied. Generally we are in favour of a piece of legislation that would address the health and safety of the population but I will reserve my judgment on it until we get it into committee and we take a good, serious look at it.

We support the goals of strengthening health and environmental protection, making the registration system more transparent and strengthening the post-registration control of pesticides. However it is important too that our current regulatory framework, dating back as late as the 60s, be updated to incorporate the modern risk assessment concepts, to entrench current practices into law, to account for new developments in pesticides in regulations around the world, and to reflect the growing concerns for the health of children and others.

We believe there are some shortcomings in the bill and a number of amendments should be made. I will outline some of those concerns later in my presentation.

The primary objective of the bill is sound. It is to prevent unacceptable risk to people and the environment from the use of pesticide control products.

As health critic I am committed to promoting and protecting the health of Canadians. The health of Canadians should be paramount when it comes to pesticides. I believe that most farmers who use pesticides are committed to protecting human health as well. Their livelihoods depend upon producing safe and healthy food products.

There are three main objectives in Bill C-53. I will speak to each of them in turn.

The first objective is strengthening health and environmental protection. These are important goals. Increased efforts to protect the health of infants, children and pregnant women are welcome. Entrenching in law current practices of additional margins of safety for pesticide use around homes and schools is appropriate.

We support the provisions related to the labelling of pesticide products and the requirement that the product safety information be available in the workplace where these products are used or made. Those who make and use pest control products deserve to know what they contain and how they are to be used with appropriate and safe measures.

Labelling on containers, from my experience, is very important. We have come a long way when it comes to that. One of the problems we saw at the farm gate level when dealing with pesticides was when metric conversion happened in Canada. It became difficult for the agricultural community to be able to discern exactly how to mix appropriately. Labelling has come a long way. We must enhance that and become even more clear on the labelling. If members have ever read the labels on containers, it is easy to become confused

The second objective is to make the registration system more transparent. The objectives of increasing transparency in pesticide regulation is noteworthy. Who would oppose more openness in the operations of government, particularly in the matters of health and safety? To that end we support the proposed establishment of a particular registry that would allow access to detailed evaluation reports on registered pesticides.

We believe that this commitment to greater transparency is so important that it should be carried over into areas of drug safety regulations because we have a serious problem when it comes to drug safety.

We think that the pesticide problem is large and is endangering our society. I will be explaining in the next few weeks just how dangerous it is and what actually is happening on the drug safety side of our society. I will not dwell on it now because of the bill that is before us, but I would suggest that if we can have such concerns when it comes to pesticides that we certainly can follow this as a pattern on the drug safety side.

The third objective is to strengthen the post-registration control of pesticides. The provisions requiring pesticide companies to report adverse effects are of obvious importance. Effective and meaningful provisions must be in place to ensure that pesticides, once on the market, can be reviewed and if necessary pulled from the market. Again, this hearkens back to the drug safety issue.

Regarding the required re-evaluations of pesticides that have been on the market for over 15 years, we are somewhat concerned that this might unduly strain the resources of the pest management review agency.

As mentioned, we support the overall direction of the legislation but we have a number of concerns. Let me briefly outline some of those.

First, the bill's laudable objectives may be difficult to achieve if management problems and the misallocation of resources at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency are not corrected.

My colleague, the member for Selkirk--Interlake, the Canadian Alliance agriculture critic, is perhaps better able to speak on some of the shortcomings of the PMRA. He has done so on numerous occasions and will undoubtedly do so again as he speaks to the legislation.

Suffice it to say that there are fundamental flaws at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which the bill has not sufficiently addressed.

Accordingly, we propose the following amendments. First:

That the PMRA be required to consider credible research and acceptable data from re-evaluations done in other jurisdictions where the pesticides are used under similar conditions.

I note that the bill specifies in subclauses 17(2) and (3) that information from other OECD nations and from other federal and provincial jurisdictions can trigger special reviews of registered pesticide.

On the positive side, the bill does not specify that information from such jurisdictions could or should be used to support the registration or the re-evaluation of the pesticide.

We would like to see the PMRA work more closely with the regulatory bodies in other countries and end unnecessary duplication and thus save valuable resources. We would also like to see it help to ensure that safe and efficient new chemicals come from the Canadian market more quickly.

Farmers in this country have expressed repeated concerns over the inability to access some of the new products because of the roadblocks set up by the PMRA.

Second:

That the re-evaluation provisions be amended so that the chemicals are only re-evaluated if an effective alternative product exists.

This is necessary to prioritize scarce PMRA resources.

We would also amend the bill to include specific approval procedures for minor use chemicals.

Unlike legislation in other jurisdiction, the bill requires manufacturers to show that their chemicals are more effective as part of the approval process.

I would like to refer to clause 7(6)(a) which states:

During an evaluation, the applicant has the burden of persuading the Minister that the health and environmental risks and the value of the pest control product are acceptable--

The notion of value is defined in the bill definitions under clause 2, Interpretation and, among other things, includes the notion of efficacy. The requirements to prove efficacy may add unnecessary costs and time to review the process.

The PMRA should only be concerned with safety. The market will decide if a pesticide is efficient and few companies will go through the process for a chemical that does not work.

We look forward to discussing and debating those proposed amendments in committee.

I would like to note that we were pleased to see that the bill did not impose a ban on the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. We believe the government is correct in allowing municipalities to maintain control over such decisions.

While the official opposition is supportive of developing and using proven alternatives in urban environments, we do not believe that the moratorium on pest control products should be in place before there is a substantial body of conclusive scientific evidence that unequivocally links such products to human disease or ill health.

The official opposition believes that proven, sound science, domestically and internationally, should continue to be the cornerstone of debate.

In conclusion, we look forward to reviewing the bill at committee, to hearing from the interested parties and to proposing amendments that will produce the best legislation that we can.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to begin second reading debate on Bill C-53, the Pest Control Products Act, and to outline the reasons why this bill deserves the support of all members of this House.

First, the purpose of federal pest management regulation is to protect Canadians and their environment from the risks associated with pesticides. To pursue this goal we need to replace the 33 year old Pest Control Products Act with a new, forward looking statutory foundation for pest management regulation in the 21st century.

Much has changed since the Pest Control Products Act was enacted in 1969. Scientific knowledge about health and environmental protection has greatly expanded. Canadians are better informed and more concerned about risks to their health and the environment. They want a greater say in how such risks should be managed.

Pest management technology has become much more sophisticated. Major pesticide users are better educated and trained. Federal, provincial and territorial pesticide regulators operate with greater transparency and in closer co-operation with one another. International harmonization has become a fact of life in pest management regulation.

Bill C-53 seeks to safeguard Canadians, especially children, from the health and environmental risks posed by pesticides. It would help ensure a safe and abundant food supply. I will provide an overview of the bill before discussing in greater detail how it would improve the current pesticide registration system.

Bill C-53 has three main objectives. First, it would strengthen health and environmental protection. It would do so by requiring special protection for infants and children, taking into account pesticide exposure from all sources including food and water, considering the cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way, and supporting pesticide risk reduction.

The second objective of the bill is to make the registration system more transparent by establishing a public registry to allow access to the detailed evaluation reports that Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency prepares on registered pesticides, by allowing the public to view the test data on which these pesticide evaluations are based, and by allowing the PMRA to share scientific studies with provincial, territorial and international regulators.

Third, Bill C-53 would strengthen post registration control of pesticides. It would do this by requiring pesticide companies to report adverse effects; making it mandatory to re-evaluate older pesticides 15 years after they are registered; providing the Minister of Health the authority to remove pesticides from the market if the data required for a re-evaluation or special review are not supplied; and providing for 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.

We have learned much over the years about how pesticides affect different populations. The proposed new PCPA would ensure Canada's children and other vulnerable populations were given special protection from the health risks posed by pesticides. It would do so by enshrining in legislation the requirement to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts including additional safety factors to protect our children.

For example, risk assessments done by the PMRA often include a safety factor of 100. To take into account the special sensitivities of children the new law would require an additional tenfold safety factor to be used, resulting in a safety factor of 1,000. This would be done unless reliable data indicated a higher or lower safety factor was more appropriate. The additional safety factor would recognize that children are affected by pesticides in a way that is different from adults.

Canadians and the international community must have confidence in the manner in which pesticides are regulated in Canada. By enhancing the transparency of our pesticide regulatory system the new PCPA would enhance public confidence here and abroad that Canadian agri-food, forestry and other products are safe.

One way we are doing this is by allowing the public to verify the grounds on which decisions are made about products. In addition, our ability to share information more easily with other countries' pesticide regulatory agencies would facilitate the international joint review of pesticides and give Canadian growers equal access to newer and safer pesticides so they could be competitive in the marketplace.

The preamble to Bill C-53 sets out the context and principles of pest management regulation. Among other principles the preamble recognizes that health and environmental risks can be associated with pesticides; that pest management is important to the economy and other aspects of our quality of life; that sustainable pest management contributes to meeting our need for food and fibre in an economically viable manner while protecting health, the environment and natural resources; and that safe and effective pesticides can make an important contribution to sustainable pest management.

It is important to keep in mind why we regulate pesticides. We do so for a variety of reasons including the following: Some pesticides may pose risks to people and the environment; many pesticides are released into the environment; our exposure to many pesticides is involuntary; and redressing harm from pesticide exposure is generally difficult.

Human exposure can occur when pesticides such as those used in agriculture, forestry, lawn and garden care, and on golf courses are released into the environment where people may be exposed to them involuntarily. In addition, since pesticides are often applied to crops and livestock we may be exposed to their residues involuntarily through the food we eat.

It is important to recognize that acute health problems attributable to pesticide exposure are relatively rare. They usually stem from accidents rather than from using pesticides according to label instructions. Most health concerns associated with pesticides tend to center on potential long term effects that would be difficult to attribute to specific products. This means we must focus on preventing such potential long term effects rather than seeking redress or medical attention after the fact.

In Canada, the United States, the European Union and most other OECD countries no pesticide may be imported, manufactured, sold or used unless the relevant regulatory authority has given its official approval. In Canada we call this approval registration. In addition, no pesticide may continue to be registered if it cannot meet current regulatory standards.

I will discuss for a moment the broader issues surrounding this piece of legislation. What do we mean when we refer to pesticides and pest management? Pesticides or pest control products are general terms for a wide variety of products designed to control pests. Common examples include herbicides to control weeds, insecticides to control insects, fungicides to control certain types of plant diseases, and preservatives to control the decay of wood and other material. Most pesticides are chemical or biological. Biological pesticides include insects, bacteria and viruses.

Pesticides are used widely and do have a variety of benefits. In homes and businesses, they control insects and other organisms that may threaten human health. They can provide benefits to the environment by controlling exotic organisms such as the zebra mussel or purple loosestrife.

Pesticides are used widely in agriculture to control many different kinds of pests and for similar purposes in other industries such as forestry. On the farm, using herbicides to control weeds instead of tilling may reduce soil erosion which is a significant environmental problem.

Pest management refers to any activity designed to control pests. For example, pest management can involve spraying pesticides on crops to kill weeds, insects and fungi. In addition, it can involve activities unrelated to pesticides, such as implementing an effective crop rotation plan.

The Canadian regulatory authority of pesticides is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is located within Health Canada and for which I as the Minister of Health am responsible. The PMRA administers the pest control products act in the name of the Minister of Health.

In accordance with the acts and regulations, the PMRA publishes guidelines which provide details about the extensive information that companies must submit to the agency when seeking a registration decision. Most applications are made by manufacturers of pesticides. A successful applicant may need to submit additional information to the PMRA for various reasons. For example, should a registrant wish to change the approved uses of a product or when the product needs to be re-evaluated, more information will be required by the PMRA.

As is the case in most developed countries around the world, the bulk of the information required by the PMRA is in the form of results of extensive rigorous scientific studies that the company must conduct. The PMRA evaluates the study results to determine whether the health and environmental risks associated with a pesticide are acceptable and whether the product has value as a pest management tool.

Our goal is to ensure that risks associated with products are acceptable before they reach the market but it is also important to ensure that products registered some time ago can meet today's standards of safety and efficacy. That is why a program for re-evaluating older products is part of any sound pest management regulatory scheme.

We will explore in a moment how Bill C-53 strengthens the post-legislation control of pesticides.

Since the regulation of pesticides is of concern to all levels of government, it is important to look at the relationship and responsibility each level of government has with respect to pesticide regulation.

Since the regulation of pesticides is of concern to all levels of government, it is important to look at the relationship and responsibility each level of government has with respect to pesticide regulation.

I would like to highlight the fact that in Canada pest management regulation includes many more elements than the federal legislation and the PMRA. Provinces and territories work in co-operation with and build on the federal regulatory system to ensure safe transportation, sale, storage, use and disposal of pesticides. Provinces and territories can add to federal restrictions to fit their local needs but cannot relax them. Currently federal, provincial and territorial authorities co-operate to enforce their respective pesticide legislation. Bill C-53 would strengthen this co-operation.

Municipalities may place whatever restrictions they wish on the use of pesticides on lands which they own. In addition, where duly authorized by provincial legislation, a municipality may establish bylaws to restrict or ban the use of pesticides on private land within its jurisdiction. Indeed some municipalities have banned the use of chemical pesticides on public lands and in some cases on private lawns. Public interest groups have called on the federal government to do the same thing under this proposed new pesticide legislation.

One does however have to remember that the federal authority for the pest control products act relies primarily upon the use of the criminal law power which is intended to address serious threats to the public interest. To include in this legislation a ban of the use of pesticides for what people refer to as cosmetic use could be exposing individuals to criminal prosecution for engaging in an activity which has not been proven to constitute an unacceptable risk. Such a measure I would submit would be beyond the proper scope of the criminal law power.

At the same time, citizens of a particular municipality may decide they do not want to have the pesticide used in their community no matter how small the risks. They may convince the municipal authorities to establish a bylaw banning all pesticides for a specific use.

Bill C-53 reflects the important contribution of many Canadians over many years, including parliamentarians, some of whom are here today, stakeholders and provincial and territorial pesticide regulators. The bill reflects their concerns and their recommendations. I would like to acknowledge and thank those who have provided their views and in so doing have participated in the development of this legislation. We owe a debt of gratitude to these groups and individuals.

I would now like to explain in greater detail the three main objectives of the bill to which I referred in my opening remarks: strengthening health and environmental protection; making the registration system more transparent; and strengthening post-registration control of pesticides.

Bill C-53 will help to move pesticide regulation in Canada from a focus on the safety and efficacy of individual pesticides to a wider appreciation of the potential impact of decisions and activities on pest management and its effects on health and the environment.

Among the benefits of the new broader regulatory perspectives called for by Bill C-53 will be clearer authority for minimizing health and environmental risks associated with pesticides and the ability to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts. As I have already mentioned, this includes a special safety factor to take into consideration the needs of children and a consideration of the different sensitivities of other vulnerable groups such as seniors.

Bill C-53 provides authority to minimize risks, not just to keep them at acceptable levels. Minimizing risks is important in health and environmental protection. It helps for example to reduce the likelihood that problems will arise because of any adverse cumulative impacts resulting from pesticide use. One way that Bill C-53 does this is by having clear definitions for the terms health risk, environmental risk and value associated with pesticides.

Health risk means the possibility of harm to people resulting from use of a product or exposure to it, taking into account how it is to be used.

Similarly, environmental risk means the possibility of harm to the environment, including its biological diversity. Environment is defined broadly to be consistent with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Environment includes the components of the earth, all layers of the atmosphere, animals and other living organisms.

Value means the actual or potential contribution of a product to the management of pests and includes its effectiveness. Value also encompasses a product's benefits to health, safety and the environment and its social and economic impact.

The clear broad definition of value will strengthen an important basis for minimizing the risks associated with pesticides. Under the new legislation, as under the current act, a product's value must be acceptable before it can be registered. This does not mean that a determination of acceptable value can override any determination that risks are unacceptable. It simply means that people should not be exposed to any risks from a pesticide unless its use has been determined to be beneficial.

Bill C-53 specifies some of the considerations that must be taken into account in order to incorporate the most modern risk assessment concepts when conducting evaluations of health risk. These concepts have already been adopted in practice but until now they have not been specified in the law. As well as the additional tenfold margin of safety to protect children from risks posed by pesticides, cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way and aggregate exposure, that is, pesticide exposure from all sources including food and water, must be assessed.

The bill also contains provisions designed to allow comparative risk assessments. This means that it will be possible to replace registered products, products that have been assessed as posing acceptable risks with other products that pose even lower risks. These provisions support minimizing risks and encourage the development of innovative safer pest control technology.

I would now like to highlight the provisions of Bill C-53 that are designed to make the pesticide registration system more transparent for all Canadians.

Decisions about the acceptability of health and environmental risks of pesticides are based on internationally accepted science. Bill C-53 recognizes however that Canadians have a right to be involved in regulatory decisions that could result in people or the environment being exposed to significant pesticide risks.

Accordingly, Bill C-53 provides for public consultation before a major decision concerning the registration of pesticides is made; the establishment of a public registry containing information about registered pesticides; the establishment of reading rooms where the public can view confidential test data which are the results of scientific studies on which the PMRA's evaluations of risk and value are based; and the opportunity for the public to request the minister to reconsider major regulatory decisions.

The bill requires that the minister consult the public before making a decision for full registration concerning a product with a new active ingredient, or a product under special review or re-evaluation, or a decision that concerns new uses of a registered product that might significantly increase the risks to people or the environment. The documentation released for public consultation would contain a description of the product and its proposed uses as well as a summary of the PMRA's assessment of its risk and value. Also included would be the proposed decision and the rationale for it.

A final registration decision would be issued after the public's comments were reviewed. The company's consent would not be necessary to release the documentation for public consultation as is the case under the current legislation.

The minister would also be required to establish a public registry containing information about registered pesticides. It would include the PMRA's detailed evaluations of the risks and values of pesticides, as well as information about applications, re-evaluations of older pesticides, and special reviews. The only categories of information that it would not include would be confidential business information and test data. All information in the registry would be available to the public either electronically whenever possible or in hard copy.

Confidential business information will be defined very narrowly in Bill C-53 and will include only financial information, manufacturing processes and formula ingredients that are not of health or environmental concern. This means that the identity and concentration of formulas that are of health or environmental concern will not be held in confidence and can in fact be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets and through the public registry.

The test data generated by companies and provided to the PMRA are considered confidential under the Access to Information Act, but Bill C-53 will make it possible for the public to view this confidential information once a product is registered. The data will not be available to the public electronically or in hard copy, but the public may examine them in a reading room.

The public would have access to summaries of the evaluations used by the PMRA to make major decisions before they were finalized. After a pesticide was registered they would be provided with the PMRA's detailed evaluations via the public registry and they would also be able to view the test data on which the PMRA's evaluations were based.

In addition, the identity and concentration of formulants that are upheld for environmental concern would not be held in confidence and would be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets and through the public registry.

This openness and transparency would go a long way to facilitating informed public participation and fostering public confidence in the regulatory system.

Information in the public registry as well as confidential business information and test data could be shared with federal or provincial and territorial regulators to facilitate collaboration. Those regulators would be required to protect the confidentiality of that information.

Under the current legislation only applicants and registrants may request that the minister convene a panel to review major registration decisions. Bill C-53 would give any member of the public the same opportunity.

The minister would have discretion to decide whether to establish the panel and would be required to provide the reasons for the decision to the requester. The public would continue to have the right to seek judicial review of decisions.

I want to talk about strengthening post registration control of pesticides. Our responsibility must obviously not stop at registration. Post registration control is very important.

That is why the bill would strengthen post registration control of pesticides by enhancing the PMRA's existing capacity to re-evaluate pesticides systematically and to conduct special reviews, notably by providing authority to take action against registrants who fail to provide the data needed to conduct the re-evaluation or special review.

The bill would also specify that the precautionary principle must be taken into account when determining whether interim action needs to be taken while a re-evaluation or special review is in progress.

Re-evaluation is important to ensure that older pesticides meet today's higher standards. Strengthened capacity to conduct re-evaluations would translate into better health and environmental protection.

There are times when action needs to be taken well before a registered product comes up for re-evaluation. That is why Bill C-53 would make it mandatory for applicants and registrants to report on any adverse effects that their pest control products are having on health or the environment. Reports of adverse effects could trigger a special review or immediate action, if necessary.

Bill C-53 specifies two new conditions of registration for all pesticides: that product safety information, including a material safety data sheet, must be provided to workplaces where the product is used or manufactured; and that information on sales of the product must be provided to me to help monitor pesticide risk reduction.

Bill C-53 would bring offences and punishments into line with modern standards. It would allow higher maximum penalties to be set, up to $1 million for the most serious offences that result in harm being done to health or to the environment.

The bill would include extensive provisions that clarify what is prohibited and what is permissible. It would enhance the powers of inspectors. It would bring compliance and enforcement up to date.

I would like to point out that careful consideration has been given to issues that should be addressed in Bill C-53 itself, and the issues that should be addressed through regulations, policies and guidelines. The approach reflected in Bill C-53 is to ensure that when it is enacted it would provide a strong, forward looking foundation for pest management regulation.

Procedural issues would be addressed mainly through regulations and details through guidelines and policies. This approach is designed so that law and policy could adapt continually to emerging risks, new products, new technology and new ways to manage risks.

The public and stakeholders would, of course, have opportunities to contribute to the regulation making, guideline and policy development processes.

We think that this approach is better suited to adapting to the inevitable changes in science and technology and public attitudes that characterize pest management regulation. We can adjust to change without having to wait for the enactment of legislative amendments.

In conclusion, Bill C-53 is an important step in the comprehensive process to reform Canada's pest management regulatory system. That process has benefited greatly from the active involvement of parliamentarians, the public, the provinces and territories and many other stakeholders. It represents the key priorities that Canadians want to see reflected in pesticide regulation in Canada, the protection of their health and their environment.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.

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