Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, on behalf of Canada's environmental party, the NDP, to speak to this motion because that is the role that we have undertaken in this Parliament, as we did in the last Parliament. What we attempt to do as a party in the House, working in this corner of the four corners of the House, is to put forward environmental platforms and strong environmental interests, so that Canadians who are increasingly concerned about the environmental degradation that we see in this country have a party to look to. That is the role that we undertake. It is within that framework today that we are presenting this motion.
The motion calls for banning pesticides within dwelling houses, within range of schools, hospitals, offices or similar buildings. In other words, it is all about protecting the public. Although we do provide some grounds for exemptions, we do say very clearly that what we have to do is put the onus on manufacturers to show that their product is safe. This should not be a controversial subject. This is something that all members of the House in all four corners of the House should be embracing.
It moves to protect the public at a time when the public, Canadians from coast to coast to coast, are increasingly preoccupied by the skyrocketing rates of cancer.
We have heard from a number of other members today. Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with some of the presentations that I have heard. Some members have been talking about the constitutionality of issues of the environment, as if the Constitution should come before protection of Canadians and keeping Canadians in good health and with a good quality environment.
We have also heard some members speak about the fact that the government should not intervene, that somehow this should be just left alone. The time for that is well past. It is time that we take our responsibility as parliamentarians seriously. It is time that we move to ban these pesticides in areas that are clearly spelled out in the NDP motion.
I would like to take a moment to explain why this important aspect has to be raised and why the motion is important for the future of the Canadians watching us this evening, who have watched all day with considerable interest.
There is scientific proof. We know there is a link between pesticides and cancer. For example, the use of pesticides in landscaping around the house doubles the risk of neuroblastoma, a cancer that occurs in children. There is a link between pesticides and skeletal anomalies, damage to the immune system and neurological damage. Pesticides often contain neurotoxins, which have a negative impact on the development of the brain.
We know as well that there is a link between pesticides and reproduction—the higher incidence of miscarriages, birth defects and problems with conception and pregnancy. We know as well that pesticides have an impact on sterility.
If we look at the use of pesticides per capita in all of the countries of the world, Canada is, unfortunately, sixth, after Australia, Italy, France, Belgium and the United States. That should be a warning.
There are, in fact, many links, and measures have to be taken.
What is the situation, when about cancer right now across the country? We know that about six million Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer. About three million will die from cancer. This is over the next 30 years. I am not talking about a small impact. We are talking about six million Canadians who have been diagnosed with cancer and three million Canadians who will die from it over 30 years. This comes from the Canadian strategy for cancer control
We know that the direct cancer health care costs would be more than $176 billion. Effectively, we are talking about the devastation that happens when communities and families are impacted.
There have been some statements in the House today that somehow cancer is not the problem, that cancer rates have not risen. We know very well that childhood cancers have risen over 20% in 30 years. We have seen increasing levels of prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, thyroid, testicular cancers are all increasing. All of these cancers have links to environmental contaminants.
We are not talking about a small issue. We are talking about an issue that will have an impact on millions and millions of Canadians over the next few decades. That is why we have the responsibility to take action. We have the responsibility to intervene. That is why Canada's environmental party, the NDP, put forward this motion today. We are debating with all the vigour and logic of our argument to get members in all four corners of the House to do the right thing, which is to take action.
It is not the right thing to say that maybe we do not like this line. It is not the right thing to say that the government should not be there protecting people. It is not the right thing to take these kinds of attitudes. The right thing for us to do is to adopt the motion and to move forward to protect Canadians.
Wendy Mesley, a well known journalist in Canada, has exposed to a rather great extent the persistence of environmental contaminants in her own bloodstream. Having gone through a very difficult bout with cancer, she got herself tested for 60 toxic chemicals, contaminants in the body. As we know, they found 44 toxic chemicals within her body. If we tested other members of the House, if we tested Canadians across the country, we would probably find similar types of environmental contaminants such as pesticides, which in the end, because of the link between pesticides and cancer, could be a contributory factor to the millions of cancer deaths that we anticipate in the next few decades.
What were the toxic chemicals that were found in her blood? One was polychlorinated biphenyls, otherwise known as PCBs. We know that PCBs are no longer produced or used in North America. The major source of exposure to PCBs today is the redistribution of PCBs already present in soil and water. In other words, they are not produced or used in North American any more. They are still contaminating and they are still a contributory factor to cancer.
For those who stay, we should do nothing, that we should just ignore the three million anticipated Canadian deaths over the next 30 years, here is a very valid and strong argument against that attitude.
Organochlorine pesticides, otherwise known as DDT, we also found in Wendy Mesley's body. We know that these are no longer used in Canada. Those contaminants were found in her blood.
Just a side note on this. The PCBs and the organochlorine pesticides are classified under California's Proposition 65, as suspected carcinogenics. Here we have an example from the United States. I know some members of this House like to follow American examples. Here we have the Americans in California saying that these are carcinogenic substances. There is obviously a link. In other parts the world, places like California, lawmakers are starting to move forward and to make those changes.
Cadmium and nickel were also found in her bloodstream.
Perhaps the strongest argument I can bring to our motion today, which we are urging all members to adopt, is the Canadian Cancer Society's position on the use of pesticides. It has said that they are concerned about the use of potentially carcinogenic substances. It bases its concern on the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which states that substances used in pesticides are classified as known, probably or possible carcinogens. The Canadian Cancer Society calls for a ban on the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming, not just the evidence over the past few years, but the evidence that we have to consider as members of Parliament. I urge members in all four corners of this House to adopt the motion.