Good afternoon.
Madam Chair and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for welcoming us today.
My name is Pascal Priori. I coordinate Victimes des pesticides du Québec, an initiative for pesticide victims by the Association pour la santé publique du Québec, or ASPQ. I am accompanied by Marianne Dessureault, director of legal affairs.
The ASPQ has been making preventive health care a priority for over 80 years. The coalition of pesticide victims that we represent brings together people who are ill and a dozen organizations, including Myeloma Canada, Parkinson Québec and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada.
Every year, we are supporting more and more sick farmers. Very solid scientific data demonstrates strong links between pesticide use and serious illnesses such as birth defects, Parkinson's disease, blood cancers, prostate cancers and respiratory diseases. Since 2021, Quebec has officially recognized Parkinson's disease as an occupational illness linked to pesticides.
The changes proposed in division 13 of part 4 of Bill C‑31 weaken the pesticide regulatory framework, even though it needs to be strengthened to protect public health. Like Canada's leading scientists working on pesticides have written to you, we ask that you remove this division from Bill C‑31. Failing that, we ask that you amend it by defining the assessment and the trigger threshold, publishing all the data and conclusions related to the assessments, prioritizing independent data and maintaining mandatory re-evaluation for highly hazardous pesticides.
These legislative proposals are part of a specific context. Canadian pesticide practices have not kept pace with the science and lag behind the practices in other jurisdictions. For example, pesticide sales in Canada have increased fivefold since 2005. Canada still permits the use of 121 highly hazardous pesticides that are banned in the European Union. At the same time, the branch at Health Canada responsible for registering pesticides is set to reduce its workforce by 31%, or approximately 190 positions. Thus, this bill adds to a regulatory framework that has long been deficient and was recently further weakened by Bill C‑30.
Division 13 of part 4 of Bill C‑31 further reduces the requirements. It makes it optional to re-evaluate pesticides every 15 years. It replaces that re-evaluation with an assessment of available information. A full re-evaluation would be carried out only if the risks have increased significantly. However, this poses three problems. First, this threshold associated with the phrase “increased significantly” does not correspond to any definition provided in the act. Second, the text doesn't specify what data will be used or what weight will be given to independent studies during the assessments. A re-evaluation, on the other hand, makes it possible to require new data from the manufacturer. Third, regarding transparency, the bill provides for the publication of the findings of an assessment only in the event of a re-evaluation. There is no requirement to publish detailed reasons when the minister decides not to re-evaluate pesticides. The government cites simplification, but Bill C‑31 proposes replacing the predictable 15‑year period with a discretionary decision on a case-by-case basis.
We would also like the Standing Committee on Health to examine these changes, given their repercussions.
Now let's talk about the economy. Health comes at a cost. First, there are health care costs. Endocrine disruptors alone, many of which are pesticides, cost Canada nearly $36 billion annually, not counting cancers and neurodegenerative diseases. Our health care systems are paying for that.
Second, there is market access. A European proposal to ban products containing residues of prohibited pesticides threatens up to $1.4 billion in Canadian exports. In fact, since January, France has been blocking agricultural products containing residues of five substances banned in Europe, four of which are commonly used in Canada.
Finally, there is dependence. In 2023, Canada imported $2 billion worth of pesticides, three-quarters of which came from the United States. Deregulation does not strengthen our agricultural sovereignty or competitiveness. On the contrary, it weakens them.
In the face of the agrochemical lobby's influence, a transparent and robust process is essential to ensure public trust and the health of pesticide users.
So we ask you: What do you say to agricultural workers with Parkinson's disease or blood cancer, who have worked their entire lives to feed Canada, when they see that pesticides deemed too hazardous elsewhere are still permitted in Canada? The government claims that health remains the priority. We'd like to understand how.
Thank you.
