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.