Debates of June 5th, 2002

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Pest Control Products Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will we be presenting petitions today or did we skip that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Yes, indeed. As soon as the motion passed to move to orders of the day we skipped petitions and questions on the order paper. The member will now have to wait until tomorrow.

[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”.

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

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1 is an amendment pertaining to the definition of confidential business information and should read in part as follows: “...meets the requirements of subsection 43(4) or (5)” instead of “43(4) and (5)”.

These two subsections identify different types of confidential business information, so the definition would not be exact. Information can meet the requirements of one subsection or the other, but not both at the same time.

The purpose of Motion No. 7 is to provide for equal participation by the Senate and the House of Commons, when the legislation is reviewed after seven years. The amendment is in accordance with the principles defining the Senate's role as established in the Constitution of Canada.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to address Motion No. 1. My hon. colleague mentioned that it adds the information that would be allowed for confidential business information. This is also specified in the bill. In the original framing of the wording in the bill, we understand that companies which have developed many different products, are rather nervous about the information already available. Also a reading room will be made available for people to read through the information but no information can be written down. Therefore this amendment makes them a little more nervous.

It is important to understand that the bill is not only about pesticides and what pesticides can or cannot come into the country or go out of it, it is also about health and safety There are two sides to the argument. The extreme side says that no pesticides should be allowed into Canada. The other side says it is difficult for us to be competitive with our neighbours to the south and other international countries because of our slowness in and restrictions on allowing pesticides into the country.

Many of the new pesticides which are being restricted are much safer and better than the ones we presently use. This kind of negative incentive to the companies that would bring products into Canada would be put in jeopardy many of our farmers and our agricultural community. They are not looking for a competitive edge. They are looking for a level playing field with many of our trading partners. Therefore it is very important for us not to entrench this confidential business information any more than that we already have. That would be a difficult one for us to support.

We discussed Motion No. 7 in committee in a pretty significant way. It is a very important amendment because it goes to the root reason of why we are here. That is to represent the people who put us in office, to express their will and to conduct business of the nation in a way that is respectful and representative of the people for whom we speak.

The amendment says that on a seven year review, the legislation could go directly to the Senate and a Senate committee for review. The Senate is unelected, unrepresentative and friendly to a prime minister of the government in power. Therefore it is not a sober second thought. It goes against the fundamentals of democracy when a review of a piece of legislation as important as this does not come back to the committee of the Commons that dealt with it originally.

We talked about this at some length at the committee. It was very important because as the debate went around, all parties in the committee agreed with the change to the bill. They agreed that when the bill came up for review that it should not go to a Senate committee but rather to a committee of the House of Commons. It is very important that we not jeopardize the democracy for which we fought so hard. It is very important that committee work be dealt with in a respectful way. That subamendment was considered with forethought and with definite ideas that it was important to the legislation.

We might think that this might have been originally an oversight in the bill. However Bill C-56, which deals with the ethics of the nation, uses exactly the same language. That bill is subject to a three year review. It too could go directly to the Senate for review, an unelected, unrepresentative group of individuals who are friendly and appointed by the prime minister, instead of parliament and the health committee.

This amendment must absolutely not be accepted. We must be allowed to continue in the manner in which the health committee recommended. I strongly oppose Motion No. 7.

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start slowly. But my speech may become more passionate later on.

First, our amendments were rejected because they were out of order and could not be debated. Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 pertain to the precautionary principle, which is a good thing when one has to make an important decision. The precautionary principle gives a direction when officials and an agency, which does not exist by the way, make decisions.

Lawmakers, and we are part of them, were providing guidance for future decisions. Previously, the legislation was reviewed every ten years. From now on, it will be reviewed every seven years.

Before I get to that, I will speak about the last motion, the amendment proposed by our friends from the government party. Members of the committee were taken in. I personally voted against that motion, against the proposed amendment.

However, our Liberal friends said “We agree with that. Let us remove the Senate and the joint committee”. They sought to please but knew full well that their motion would be defeated in this House. It goes against parliamentary tradition. So they made a correction. They were proud at committee. They boasted and said “Very well, we will give power back to the House of Commons”. However, they knew full well that the government would not allow it. It makes no sense. So they changed that.

Between you and me, we did not agree with having the House of Commons act alone. It is a prerogative and a tradition in the House of Commons. That motion will certainly gather support. But this proves that members of the Liberal committee, or I should say the Liberal members of the committee—

[An hon. member]

Same thing.

[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.

[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.

[An hon. member]

It was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

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

—indeed, among others, the parliamentary secretary, who was acting as the government's puppet. He listened to his officials, but he was very far from listening to what the public really wanted. What people want is a process and tools to reduce the use of pesticides in Canada.

However, I must point out that this bill and the current initiative must not lead to a ban of pesticides. Let me explain. It is not that I do not think that pesticides must eventually be banned, in three or five years, but this must be done in the respect of the various jurisdictions.

We on this side of the House believe that the federal government's responsibility regarding pesticide management is limited to the registration and marketing of the products. We also believe that the provinces are responsible for managing the sale and use of pesticides, and that the municipalities have a responsibility regarding the implementation of certain rules or provisions adopted by various levels of government. In the case of municipalities, it is toward the provincial government.

I stress this point because a number of rulings have been issued. I am thinking for instance of a judgment concerning the town of Hudson. The supreme court supported the town of Hudson regarding the implementation of a bylaw banning the use of pesticides.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

For cosmetic purposes.

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

Of course, for cosmetic purposes, as my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve just reminded me.

However, let us keep in mind that those supreme court decisions are based on the fact that municipalities are under the Cities and Towns Act of Quebec and the Municipal Code of Quebec. It is therefore under Quebec legislation that the court supported the decisions of municipalities to prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes.

What does the present situation require us to do? It requires what the government has decided to do, that is set up in Quebec a committee, a working group on this issue and develop a policy, which, hopefully, will be tabled soon.

What did this working group, the Cousineau working group, say? Many things. It came to the conclusion that the Government of Quebec wanted to eliminate the use of pesticides within five years in the case of lawns and within three years for trees and shrubs.

More basically, the working group recommended the implementation of a pest management code under which a national standard would be established in Quebec for the use of pesticides. This national standard, which would be the result of a consensus, would be implemented by the municipalities in Quebec.

I now come back to what I was saying earlier, which is that the federal government most certainly has an important role to play. We are disappointed because the government refused to support the Bloc amendments designed, among other things, to develop organic agriculture in Quebec and provide financial incentives, as is currently being done in Europe. The government opposed the establishment of a program proposed in committee by the Bloc Quebecois.

Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois had proposed to speed up the implementation of biopesticides registration. As we know, there are at present only 30 biopesticides sold on the Canadian market, compared to 150 in the United States. On this side of the House, we would have wished to speed up the implementation and registration process of those biopesticides, in order to have real pest control providing for the use of alternative solutions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournement are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Gun Registry; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Wharf Maintenance; the hon. member for St. John's West, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

I was going to give the floor to the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, but before doing so, I would like to give it to a new member of parliament, the hon. member for Windsor West, whom I welcome to the House.

[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.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

He was.

[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.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my compliments to the member for Windsor West on his remarks on this legislation. Although he was not a member of the Standing Committee on Health, it is obvious that he has a fair amount of institutional knowledge on the file. He raised a lot of the salient points that should be considered in the bill.

I had the privilege but also the arduous task of sitting on the environment committee in 1999 when we undertook a one year review of the pesticide management regime. An all party report was tabled. The committee heard from numerous stakeholders, not just environmentalists but health care professionals as well as the participants of the Pest Management Advisory Council itself.

There were aspects we agreed to in that review of the legislation. To summarize, clearly when we are evaluating toxicity for pesticides or any particular toxin, there has to be a margin of safety under consideration that would take into account the health of the most vulnerable of our population, they being pregnant women, the elderly and children.

Mr. Speaker, you were a very active participant in the election campaign in November 2000. It is always good and healthy for us to see what was in the platforms of our competitors. There were three particular planks in the Progressive Conservative platform in November 2000.

Essentially the platform outlined that a Progressive Conservative government would table new pesticide legislation that would modernize the existing 30 year old legislation. We give kudos to the Government of Canada for adopting another Progressive Conservative initiative, very similar to what was done with respect to free trade, deregulation, tax reform, privatization and winning the war on inflation. We know the Liberals are not capable of coming up with their own ideas so the taking of our ideas is more than welcome.

I applaud the Minister of Health for tabling new legislation in the early weeks of her taking over that file. We said at that time that exposure levels and toxicity of pesticides would be evaluated with consideration to the effects on our most vulnerable populations.

We also want to highlight the second aspect, which is a cornerstone of what the all party committee flagged in its report of June 1999. There has to be public disclosure of what the formulants are, those ingredients other than the active ingredients of pesticides.

Numerous individuals who are concerned about pesticides in the environment recognize that quite often the formulants are actually more hazardous to human health than perhaps the active ingredient itself. That is why there has to be full and public disclosure.

We are also advocate trying to have a public awareness campaign, almost to the degree there is now in educating Canadians about the health implications of cigarette smoking. We need to show that there is a cumulative effect of adding more pesticides into our environment. We need to foster a culture of reduced reliance on pesticides and have a more integrated pest management approach.

Speaking directly to the motions, I am quite concerned about Motion No. 1 moved by the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada. It has essentially gutted a Progressive Conservative amendment that was supported almost unanimously by both sides of the House at the committee stage.

They are the democratically elected individuals of our country who have said in good faith that this makes sense. They are educated parliamentarians who have listened to witnesses and understood that there has to be disclosure of substances that are in the pesticides themselves. This reflects on the issue of formulants.

The Tory amendment would have specified that confidential business information should be the only information legitimately withheld from the public. All other information regarding health effects, environmental impacts and efficacy are defined as in the public interest. Essentially we are saying that the amendment specified exactly what information is to be kept confidential. The public has the right to be informed of the rest. All members of the committee supported that amendment.

I compliment the member for Winnipeg North Centre who serves as the health critic for the NDP, the Canadian Alliance which stepped up to the plate on this amendment and the learned Liberal members, but here we are now pulling it back. We are pulling back an amendment that Liberal members supported, including the government representative for the ministry. We find that to be quite sad.

Before us are three motions that essentially speak to the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is an international concept which says that the preponderance of evidence, the weight of evidence shows that there could be a detrimental effect to the environment or to human health. When factoring in the application of a particular substance, a very strong precautionary approach should be taken into account.

This is what we had in 1987 when we adopted a protocol on ozone depleting gasses done by the Progressive Conservative government led by the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. It was also the same precautionary principle that was adopted by the United Nations where the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney played an immense role in the 1992 Rio earth summit in that regard. It is a concept that by definition is used in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We see it referenced in section 20.2 of the proposed act.

We are calling on the Government of Canada to utilize it when it makes decisions. Whether it is the re-evaluation of an existing pesticide or the proposed registration or application of a new pesticide, we need to ensure that we take a very strong precautionary approach. That is the minimum that we owe Canadians.

It provides a clear transparency about how the Pest Management Review Agency utilizes the precautionary principle. It told us that the precautionary principle is utilized across the board in its decision making process. The witnesses had said that they asked for it. If it actually uses the precautionary approach, why not enshrine it in the act? Why not make it a duty? Why not make the Government of Canada accountable by having a clear standard? It makes a whole lot of sense.

I would also like to speak in support of Motion No. 5 moved by the New Democrats. They point out that we need a national pesticide use and sales database and a national pesticide use survey. Canada is the only OECD country without a national pesticide sales database. The only other major industrialized country that does not have a database on the use of pesticides is the Czech Republic, which was mentioned by the auditor general just a few years ago. Motion No. 6 moved by the New Democrats speaks to the same issue.

The final motion we would want to support but we would have preferred at least a five year review as opposed to a seven year review is that moved by the Liberal government to ensure that we do not have a 30 year old act again.

Kudos to the government for revising an act that is 30 years old. It is sad that it is not pioneering. We are discussing a mediocre bill which deserves mediocre support.