Debates of May 16th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Pesticides

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that the NDP has introduced this motion today. It reminds me of a similar significant initiative that we undertook a couple of years ago, and that was our motion on trans fats that was approved by the House. We did that, as we do this today, on the basis of responding to the significant concerns in Canada about public health, about the impact on people's personal health of the use of pesticides and trans fats.

I am proud of the fact that the NDP has taken a very strong approach here and is in effect calling for a ban of non-essential cosmetic pesticides.

I would think it would be an initiative that the member from the Bloc would welcome. There is nothing in this motion that undermines what the province of Quebec has done. In fact, on the contrary. We should be celebrating that this has happened in Quebec and saying, “Let's see this happen in the rest of Canada”.

From that point of view, it is very disappointing that the member did not respond to the question raised by the member for Halifax. I think what is being said here is that there are no boundaries in the air that we breathe and the chemicals that we ingest. We all want a good quality of life. We all share this planet. Therefore, in this federal jurisdiction, surely, the most significant thing we can do is to bring forward something like this to build on what has taken place in Quebec. I would expect to see these members supporting an initiative that would ensure that what has happened in Quebec would take place in other jurisdictions across the country.

We know that over 100 municipalities have adopted pesticide bylaws. We know that the province of Quebec has done that as well. Let us see this right across Canada. What is wrong with that, for heaven's sake?

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

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague proposes to make a constitutional change, that is her right. However, I do not think that that is what the NDP wants, unless it tells us so clearly. If that is the case, so be it.

I would nevertheless ask my colleague to read the Constitution. She will see that the municipalities come under the provinces. I find it strange today that the NDP should be so sanctimonious and want to lecture Quebec, when it has beside it and before it a government and an opposition party that have done nothing in recent years—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to show some respect for me.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to allow the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to continue with his response.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Quebec has had some very good results in the struggle against pesticides. It is regrettable that the NDP should try to lecture my political party and Quebec as a whole, when a government party is not concerned about the matter, and an official opposition party did not inject the necessary funds in order to protect re-evaluation.

We are part of a system that has responsibilities. Quebec has clearly shown that it takes its responsibilities. Ottawa must act now. We expect it to do so quickly.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague's intervention today in respect of this important issue and I certainly concur with him in respect of jurisdiction.

We see that this is an important piece of federal responsibility with respect to the control of these products. Clearly, when we get into areas respecting how products should be applied, particularly as it respects land use and parcels of land and property, these come under provincial and/or municipal type jurisdiction.

It is an added advantage where provinces and municipalities can find ways to work together with their federal counterparts, for example, in the areas of urban lawn care. All governments have worked together on these issues.

The member raised an interesting question with regard to the re-evaluation process and the fact that it could perhaps be speeded up. Given the fact that there are 401 of these ingredients that were registered prior to 1995, more than a majority of them have already been in fact re-evaluated. I would be interested in his comments on how he would see this being sped up.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the necessary means must be given to the PMRA, the agency whose mandate is to re-evaluate the active ingredients in pesticides.

I recall very clearly, during the study of Bill C-53, which gave rise to the Pest Control Products Act, PMRA officials told us that a legislative approach was required to shorten the length of time. So it is possible to shorten the length time under the Pest Control Products Act.

However, as with so many of the acts that we pass here, the financial resources do not follow. That is a problem. We find ourselves unable to conduct this re-evaluation, as necessary as it is. It is actually being demanded not only by citizens who wish to have a better environment and better health, but also by manufacturers who wish to see the length of time shortened.

The PMRA must therefore be given the resources so that it can do its work and thus protect Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to have the opportunity to join in the debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

First, let me recognize and pay tribute to the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, who tabled the motion. It was very fitting that he was the leadoff speaker. He has a long history in Toronto municipal politics in being the champion of this issue, coming from the very municipality that was the first in Canada to take the step of banning the use of cosmetic and non-essential pesticides. It has been a very important part of his career to date.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Winnipeg North.

I will being my remarks with a shocking statistic. Our children now have a fifty-fifty chance of getting cancer. It was not always that way. In fact, it was only in the post-war years that the use of chemicals grew exponentially. Correspondingly we know now it is no coincidence that there is a direct causal link of many cancers to that exponential growth in the use of chemicals.

For years now, as the incidence of cancer has increased, we have struggled with this. I do not know of a family who has not been touched by cancer. More often than not, we are told by the medical community and the establishment that we probably got cancer because of something we did. Perhaps it is our lifestyle, or perhaps we have been a smoker or we do not exercise enough. Those are true, but we have to consider as well the environmental factors, beyond the control of most Canadians, but within the control of members of Parliament, which are adding and contributing to this alarming incidence of diseases.

Let me be clear, our motion today does not deal with agricultural use of pesticides. It does not interfere with herbicides used by farmers or any other commercial application. We are trying to address the decorative, non-essential use of pesticides which represents about 40% of all the pesticides used. Of the 200 million kilograms of chemical pesticides used per year, about 40% is in that category of non-essential, decorative, cosmetic lawns and gardens, golf courses, et cetera. It is unnecessary.

When it comes to pregnant women and children, who are the most vulnerable to the effects of chemicals, surely the precautionary principle must prevail. Up until now, the burden of proof has been on us to show beyond any doubt that a specific chemical causes a specific cancer. It is an impossible test. It is a bit of a mug's game because no one is able to do that given the compounding effect of the many chemicals to which we are exposed. On that basis, the chemical companies have been allowed to continue to sell these products to the point where they are ubiquitous.

Our initiative reverses that burden of proof. It calls for an absolute moratorium on all non-essential, decorative, cosmetic uses of pesticides on Earth Day, April 22 of next year, until such time that each individual chemical manufacturer can come forward and prove to us beyond any reasonable doubt that its product is absolutely safe. Why should be have to prove that its product is hurting us? Why does it not have to prove that its product is absolutely safe? The burden of proof is turned upside down and stood on its head.

Some would argue that there already is a regulatory agency that takes care of the regulation of dangerous chemicals. We argue that the current regulatory regime has been woefully inadequate. For instance, 2,4-D was just recently reaffirmed as an okay chemical to use. I have a report here from the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, published two weeks ago, that overwhelmingly makes the causal link between 2,4-D of not only childhood cancers but also of neurological and developmental disorders and other health conditions.

We know enough now that the precautionary principle should kick in and make every member of Parliament nod their heads. We have to stop this. We have to stop soiling our own nest and contaminating our environment to the point where our children are being exposed. We know enough about early childhood development to know that their little brain cells have thinner walls than ours and that they are much more vulnerable to contamination by the exposure rates. The threshold limits for adults are 10 to 20 times higher than they should be for children. It is children who are exposed by tumbling around on the front lawn.

Over 50% of childhood exposure to pesticides is actually in the house. Chemical agents bond with molecules of dirt and get tracked into the home where they get circulated and recirculated for a much longer lifespan than that same chemical would have if it were left out in the open.

Therefore, we believe this issue is common sense. We have to look at the other contributing factors to our public health. Above and beyond taking care of ourselves and watching what we eat and quitting smoking, we also have to take steps to protect us from environmental contaminations.

Anyone who saw the recent television show on CBC with Wendy Mesley could not help but be moved at the compelling argument she made and how shocked she was at the pervasive nature of chemical exposure and how little regulation there really was. It is almost as if we are interfering with the chemical companies' right to market products if we question them.

Chemical companies are not necessarily our friends in terms of our public health. Their business is to sell product. They do that very capably and have very powerful lobbies to try to stop anyone who may have the temerity to suggest their product is not healthy.

I have seen Wendy Mesley's show repeated three or four times now. She makes the argument, better than I have ever heard, that we have to put the brakes on this. We are irresponsible if we do not do all we can to minimize the exposure, especially of children. We have to do something about the alarming statistic that 50% of our kids will get cancer. That in itself should stop up dead in our tracks.

I know we are going to get pushed back from the chemical companies. Believe me, I have been getting it already in my office. However, I will point out specifically the fault we find with the current health assessment practices of the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

The PMRA relies basically on animal toxicity studies and human exposure estimates. Many of these studies are never peer reviewed from a scientific point of view. I am not a scientist, but I do understand these studies should be reviewed. Moreover the extrapolation from studies on rats may not be as valid as formerly thought. We now know that rats have genes that do not exist in people, which detoxify chemicals differently than what people do. If we are measuring toxicity and threshold limits in rats, it is not as applicable to humans as we once thought. It is certainly not applicable to children who recent research has shown absorb and are susceptible to contamination by chemicals at a far greater rate than we originally believed.

It has been pointed out that over 90 municipalities, and I believe it is now over 100 municipalities, have already taken these important steps, including the city of Toronto and the city of Halifax. However, many other municipalities and cities have tried and failed, for example the city of Ottawa. Ottawa city council tried for three years to get the cosmetic use of pesticides banned. It was overwhelmed by a forceful lobby from the pro-pesticide use community. The vote failed just recently. It was lost by one vote. Therefore, Ottawa is not protected.

This is why it is appropriate for the federal government to intervene, within its jurisdiction at the regulatory level, to reverse the onus and protect the communities that do not have the wherewithal to fight the lawsuits and the aggressive lobby by the chemical companies.

For the rest of Canadians who are not already protected by their own municipal bylaws, the House of Commons could take action and make this a blanket universal protection. I dearly hope that members of Parliament see fit to do so, whether their own communities are covered or not.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks and I think he should look at the pesticide issue in Ottawa. Ottawa tried to impose a bylaw. The mayor had to call a rural-urban summit last fall. The farmers were outraged because they cannot have the same laws applied to them in terms of what they are doing in their fields to control weeds with herbicides, pesticides and fungicides in order to grow a high quality crop.

My concern with this motion is that the federal government, through the exercise of the motion, would basically provide blanket treatment across the country, and I think it would cause untold difficulties for the farm sector. The motion mentions that it does not apply to farms, but there will be instances where it does. I see this as a great problem.

How is the member going to ensure that this does not shut down our production base, that it does not make it difficult for us to produce in a way such that we would not have disease and moulds in some of our crops?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did deal with this very issue the other day on P.E.I. CBC Radio, I believe, when I introduced my bill to ban pesticides. It is true that the agricultural community is concerned that if we ban the use of pesticides for the cosmetic use, it may mean that the manufacturers are less able to provide a sufficient amount of product and their profit margins would be impacted et cetera.

I do not accept that. I am willing to err on the side of caution once again, because our motion specifically says that it does not affect the agricultural or commercial use of pesticides. It is only the non-essential cosmetic use that we are targeting. We are not trying to interfere with the agricultural community although we wish agriculture was not so heavily dependent on pesticides. In my home province of Manitoba, I know that it is difficult to get crop insurance if farmers are unwilling to stipulate that they will use x number of units per acre of pesticides, herbicides et cetera.

There is one thing that I will add. Homeowners lay it on too heavy. Farmers might lay on one litre of herbicide per acre. A homeowner may lay on one litre per front yard. It is also the irresponsible use of non-professionals that the bill would affect.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre answered that question very well in terms of the agricultural industry. I am sure that on another day we can have another debate about what we need to do there in terms of looking at alternatives and organic farming and looking at the agricultural sector, but today we are focused on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

I think the motion establishes two very important principles that I would like to ask the member to talk about. One he has already mentioned, and that is reversing the burden of proof. That is very important in terms of public policy. It has been up to individuals and organizations to challenge what is going on and to show that something is unsafe. Now the burden of proof would be on the manufacturers to show that if they want a product to come into use they have to be able to demonstrate that it is safe.

The second important principle is that of reducing exposure. We know there is a huge amount of evidence to say that exposure to all of these chemicals and pesticides is dangerous. It is ironic that we send kids out to play and to the playground to get fresh air and get them outside, yet we are sending them into a risk zone. I would like to ask the member to address that issue of reducing exposure.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the most commonly used weedkiller, 2,4-D, which has just recently been put back on the list of chemicals that are okay to use, has just been persuasively linked, according to the journal Paediatrics and Child Health, to cancer, neurological impairment and reproductive problems in all kinds of people, mostly children. That is shocking.

We have an obligation to reduce the exposure. If that means that our parks, our playgrounds and our golf courses have less chemicals, we have to do that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a chance to speak on this important motion introduced by the NDP dealing with banning pesticides when they are used for cosmetic purposes.

I too want to join with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and acknowledge the work of our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, in spearheading this initiative before us today and to thank him for his leadership on the matter.

While I am at it, let me recognize the work of the member for Winnipeg Centre, who just a little while ago introduced a private member's bill in this House, Bill C-225, which would do precisely what this motion before us attempts to do, and that is to place a moratorium on the use of pesticides when it comes to caring for our lawns and flowerbeds and when we are talking about cosmetic purposes.

I want to start by referencing an earlier remark made by the member for Kings--Hants, a member of this House who was once a Conservative and then a Liberal and is now an aspiring candidate for the Liberal leadership, and who cannot seem to get his facts straight and is reflecting what I think is a very inconsistent message from Liberals on this issue. That, of course, has to do with attempts by this Parliament for many years to try to get such a ban.

The issue before us is not a new one. It has been discussed in this House and at committee many times. Let me go back to when I was first elected in 1997. I can recall all kinds of correspondence and promises by the Liberal government of the time to deal with it. I know that there were previous private members' motions and bills placed before the House on this matter on a regular basis.

The most recent opportunity we had to actually deal with this issue in a decisive way was back in 2002, when the Pest Control Products Act was up for review before the health committee and this Parliament. At that time, it was recognized that the legislation, which came into effect in 1969, was out of date, old fashioned, had not kept pace with the tremendous influx of pesticides and toxic substances in our marketplace and had to be refined and reviewed.

At that time, the Liberal government of the day in fact promised a massive overhaul, promising that it would bring this legislation into the modern century and address numerous concerns that had been raised by experts in the health field and by individual citizens who had felt the most serious ramifications from pesticides in terms of their own health and well-being. At that time, the legislation that was introduced did not in fact bring forward a ban on pesticides.

This is contrary to what we have just heard from the member for Kings--Hants, who is running for the leadership of the Liberal Party and does not seem to have his facts correct once again. He seems to have gotten himself mixed up first on the income trust issue and now he is not clear about pesticides. I think it is about time that he did some homework and in fact recognized what kind of record the party of which he is now a member has on issues like pesticides. Perhaps when he made the leap from the Conservatives to the Liberals he had not really studied just how good Liberals are at pretending they are going to deal with something but never actually getting down to it.

Goodness knows how many times we have heard in this House from Liberals about how they were going to crack down on pesticides and take up the challenge of banning these substances from use on a cosmetic basis. How many times have we heard that? How many times have Canadians believed that?

Where are we today? There is no ban on pesticides for cosmetic purposes. There was nothing in Bill C-53 in the year 2002, many years after this issue had been discussed on numerous occasions in the House and many years after definitive scientific research was available for all of us to use. Not only was that piece missing from the Liberal bill, the government of the day would not entertain any motions to change the bill to that effect.

On this side of the House in the New Democratic Party, we tried very hard to get Bill C-53 amended to ban pesticides in terms of cosmetic use. No, sir, there was nothing doing by the Liberals at the time, just like so many other issues that we were dealing with at the health committee and on every other level.

So here we are today, years after this issue was raised, years after many Canadians have had to suffer through the worst effects of the toxins found in pesticides today, and we are at square one. We are trying to do something very civilized, humane, practical, commonsensical and realistic and simply ban the use of pesticides when it comes to cosmetic or decorative purposes.

We are not talking about agriculture at the moment, although of course there are a lot of things we should be doing on that front in terms of trying to give citizens the right to know what is being used, in terms of trying to apply the precautionary principle so that disastrous products are not allowed on the market and the health of human beings and animals comes first.

However, today we are talking just about lawns and flowerbeds and banning pesticides that are very toxic and harmful to human beings. Back when we debated this issue in 2002, we heard incredible testimony from individuals and organizations about the dangers that pesticide use in urban areas caused. We heard how the impact on human health is severe and profound and could lead to fetal damage and to long term physical health problems for individuals, particularly those already sensitive to chemicals and other foreign substances. The evidence was in at the time, and it is in today before us.

We are all hoping that finally we can all come together and deal with the issue once and for all, that we can make up for lost ground and years of inaction by Liberals. Perhaps members on the Conservative side, the Conservative government, who sat through those years watching the Liberals on the health committee as they refused to entertain important amendments, are now prepared to actually join forces, make up for the inadequacies of the previous government and do something substantive, concrete and real for Canadians.

I want to refer to the fact that numerous constituents have written to me on this issue, just like other members of Parliament have mentioned. On a regular basis we get e-mails such as the one I just received from Colin McInnes in my riding. He said, “I am writing to let you know that I fully support...[ the] private member's bill [introduced by the member for Winnipeg Centre] to limit the use of cosmetic pesticides...”. He urges me to take whatever action I can.

I want to refer to Barry Hammond, who over the years has written me numerous times on this issue, going back to the year 2000 when he wrote me and the Minister of Health at the time, Allan Rock. He said:

Pesticides have been known to be an environmental problem since the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, if not before. Yet we continue to dispense these poisons without full knowledge of which species are affected.

I want to refer to the work of a former member of Parliament for Halifax West, Gordon Earle, who went to great lengths to bring this matter before the House and to table documents and cite studies. I want to refer specifically to documents he circulated from a physician, a Mr. Roy Fox, who documented numerous cases of illness and serious health side effects as a result of exposure to pesticides.

I want to refer specifically to a study by Roy Fox entitled, “The Impact of Chemical Lawn Care on Human Health”. The fact is that he has pointed out that such toxins can lead to “disturbed neurological development” and “hormone mimicry”, and that we are looking at such things as “life threatening complications such as cardiac arrhythmia and anaphylaxis”. He recommends that action be taken because exposure to lawn chemicals can pose serious risks to human health.

I join with everyone who wants to support this motion and make a difference in this Parliament. I thank members for taking the time to discuss such a serious, important issue.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, coming from a local government perspective for nine years, working within various components provincially and federally and having had the discussion numerous times around counsel tables in communities and across the country, I want to remind the member that provinces, municipalities and most communities have the authority to make the decision to further restrict or actually prohibit pesticide use to reflect conditions in their own jurisdiction. If they want to eliminate or ban the cosmetic use of pesticides they have the jurisdiction. They do not have to use the precautionary principle. If it is a community choice they do not need to have a scientific demonstration.

Within my own community of Kelowna—Lake Country, the school district has established a ban on pesticides for cosmetic purposes, which is a choice each school district has. I believe in allowing local government, communities and the provinces to have the decision making ability close to home. In our valley, with the apple and pear orchards, as the member for Kings—Hants mentioned, it is important to use it to create pest management and alternative means of pesticides. We have the sterile insect release program, which has worked very well.

Does the member not feel that the local government and the people closest to the community should have the ability to make that decision and not big brother or the federal government having to impose these regulations?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that the federal government should show some leadership on this issue which has such widespread ramifications for health and well-being. The member on the Conservative benches will know how often in the House we deal with escalating health costs and the drain on the treasury, both federally and provincially, as a result of the use of our health care system, much of which could be preventable.

I would think all of us have an absolute responsibility to ensure that all levels of government deal with this issue. Nothing is wrong with the federal Parliament taking a position on pesticides when it comes to cosmetic use. There is nothing wrong with showing some leadership here that will then help those at provincial and local levels make the decisions they want to make but feel they are up against considerable opposition or obstacles.

We have a great service to provide Canadians. It has nothing to do with being a big brother. It is about not allowing the rules of the jungle to prevail and the survival of the fittest to take precedence over all else.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and the history lesson we received this afternoon.

However, I would beg the member's indulgence on one item. She mentioned at one point that at the moment she and hon. members in the NDP were not bringing forward any kind of suggestions for bans on herbicides or pesticides for agricultural use. I wonder if she might inform the House as to when we might see a proposed ban of that sort.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the question because, as usual, the Conservative member has chosen to twist my remarks to his convenience. Everyone will know that I did not say that the New Democratic Party was at the moment not considering a ban on other pesticides. If he checks the record he will know I said that there were many things that ought to be looked at in terms of the broad areas of pesticides.

I might refer the member to a few constructive suggestions that were made by myself when Bill C-53 was before the House and, I am sure, by some of his own party members. At the time we had all been fully informed of the health risks of exposure to a considerable number of pesticides. We all believe that it is important for the federal government to uphold the law of the land, which is the precautionary principle, the do no harm principle, and therefore the requirement that every pesticide introduced into the marketplace goes through the test of no danger to the public.

The previous Liberal government refused to do that and we are hoping the Conservatives will apply it because they believe, as we believe, that--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

My apologies, but we do have to move on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I would like to take a few minutes to describe a major development in the regulation of pesticides in Canada. The new Pest Control Products Act was given royal assent on December 12, 2002. It will be brought into force by an order that will be made by the government once key regulations to support the new act are in place. The act will be proclaimed as soon as possible this year, 2006.

Fundamentally, the new act does three things: First, it supports the strong health and environmental protection practices currently employed by Health Canada; second, it makes the pesticide approval or registration system more transparent and accountable; and third, it strengthens the post-registration controls on pesticides.

I will describe each of these areas in more detail. First, the new act strengthens the health and environmental protection provided by the existing act. In order to legally sell or use a pesticide in Canada, the pesticide must first be reviewed and approved or registered by Health Canada.

The new act formalizes important and current risk assessment concepts to protect vulnerable populations. These concepts include the consideration of: different sensitivities of major population groups, including infants and children; exposures from all sources, including food, drinking water and domestic use of pesticides; and finally, cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way.

These concepts also apply an additional margin of safety to protect infants and children from risk posed by pesticide residues in food and when pesticides are used in and around homes and schools, and take into account government policies such as the toxic substances management policy.

While new in law, these provisions do not change current practices. They do, however, make visible to the public the fact that these practices are and will continue to be in place and, therefore, will help to enhance public confidence in the regulatory system. This is a clear benefit of having these provisions in the legislation.

The second thing that the new act does, as I mentioned earlier, is to make the registration system more transparent and accountable. This is the area in which there are the most fundamental changes to the existing act. The new act definitively opens up the regulatory system to allow meaningful participation by stakeholders and the public.

The new act does this in the following ways; with access to information. The new act defines two categories of information: confidential test data and confidential business information. All other information is considered non-confidential information under the new Pest Control Products Act and thus will be publicly available. This includes information about the status of all registered pesticides, the applications received by Health Canada and whether the registration was granted or denied, the re-evaluations and special reviews that are underway and, very important, Health Canada's detailed evaluations of the risks and value of registered pesticides. All of this information will be made available through a public registry, electronically whenever possible.

Confidential test data that are generated by companies and provided to the PMRA will be accessible for examination in a reading room.

The only category of information that will not be made available to the public will be confidential business information. Confidential business information is defined very narrowly in the new act. It includes financial information, manufacturing processes and methods for determining a product's composition and formulants that are not of health or environmental concern.

The identity and concentration of formulants that are of health and environmental concern will be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets and through the public registry. A list of formulants and contaminants of concern has already been published.

The public will not be the only ones to benefit from this increased transparency. Under the new act, confidential business information and test data can be shared under certain circumstances with federal, provincial and territorial regulators, regulators in other countries and medical professionals, as long as the information is kept confidential.

This is in addition to all the other information that will be available to them through the public registry. This will make it easier for Health Canada to cooperate with other regulators. This is fundamental to smart regulations.

Under the new Pest Control Products Act, it is mandatory to consult the public before a major registration decision is made final. Major registration decisions include any decision to grant or deny an application for full registration of a new active ingredient or a major new use and any decision to maintain, amend or cancel a registration following a re-evaluation or special review.

The mandatory public consultation process and the public registry will make a great deal of important information available to the public. The public will have access to summaries of the evaluations done by Health Canada scientists which form the basis for proposed regulatory decisions before they are finalized. After a pesticide is registered, the public will have access to the detailed evaluations via the public registry and they will also be able to view the test data on which the evaluations are based. These provisions will support informed citizen participation in the pesticide regulatory system.

The new act also strengthens accountability to Parliament and the Canadian public by requiring that comments received during the mandatory public consultation periods be considered in the final decision to register a pesticide. There is also a requirement for Health Canada to publish its policies, guidelines and codes of practice, among other official documents.

Finally, the act requires that an annual report by tabled in Parliament.

I mentioned at the beginning of my comments that the new act does three main things. The third is to strengthen the post-registration controls on pesticides.

Registration does not confer unrestricted rights respecting the marketing, sale and use of pesticides. On the contrary, the registration includes detailed instructions on how the pesticide must be used in order to comply with the law known as “conditions of registration”.

There is also a continuing responsibility to ensure that the risks and value of a registered pesticide are still considered to be acceptable. This is done through a re-evaluation or special review. The new act strengthens the existing provisions for these programs, notably by requiring re-evaluations of pesticides to be done 15 years after they are registered and by providing the minister with the authority to take action if a registrant fails to provide the data needed to conduct re-evaluations.

The new act provides the authority to remove products from the market or modify their conditions of use upon completion of or during a re-evaluation or special review.

The new act specifies that in determining appropriate actions during re-evaluations or special reviews the precautionary principle must be taken into account. In other words, if there is reason to believe that a registered pesticide is posing threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation. This would allow rapid interim action be taken to prevent ongoing exposure to the pesticide while a more detailed scientific review is undertaken. Once the review was completed, that action would be continued, modified or rescinded depending on the results of the review.

Another important feature of the new act is that it includes provisions for mandatory reporting of incidents, that is, new information indicating that the health or environmental risks or the value of a registered pesticide may no longer be acceptable. Regulations will be needed to specify the information that must be reported and the timeframes for reporting.

Information provided through incident reporting could identify the need for a special review. Under the new act, special reviews can also be triggered by information received from other federal or provincial departments, a ban in another member country of the OECD or a request from the public. In the case of a public request, there is discretion as to whether or not to initiate the special review and policies will be developed to guide this decision.

Before closing I would like to reiterate that the new Pest Control Products Act will strengthen Canada's already stringent safeguards against the risks to people and the environment from the use of pesticides. Canadians will have access to more information and new opportunities for input into major pesticide registration decisions. A modernized, strengthened and clarified law on pesticide regulation will create a regulatory system in which all Canadians can have confidence.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this motion by the NDP I cannot help but think that if the NDP could they would basically turn back the industrial revolution. We have made great strides with research and science over the decades. This is just the thin tip of the wedge.

I heard some of the speakers from the NDP using the word “cancer”. A lot of misinformation is out there about pesticides, herbicides, the kinds of control systems we have in place in this country and the regulatory regime. The member opposite correctly spelled out in detail the Pest Control Products Act.

I would ask the member opposite for his thoughts on the long term impact of the NDP motion. Although those members say that they do not want it to apply to the farm community, I believe it would set the stage for an attack on it. I am from P.E.I. and we have seen it. What is his view? Is there a long term impact here on the ability of the agricultural community to be productive in its efforts and use research and development in terms of their work?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that within Health Canada the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has the ability to properly screen and oversee the use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture and for residential use for that matter. There is no doubt that we are protected as citizens. The scientists and specialists are very vigilant in their evaluation of the products that we are using in food production and also in our homes and residential areas.

I am really concerned about this motion. It is not giving us a chance as the new government to bring in the Pest Control Products Act which passed in 2002 and bring forward those regulations and implement that act in 2006.

The NDP motion also steps on the toes of municipalities and provinces which have the ability to implement their own regulations. This is such a paternal motion that it is going to take away powers from the provinces and municipalities. There is the possibility of future problems down the road for agriculture. I am quite concerned about that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to take on the member for Malpeque and his suggestion that we dare not use the word “cancer” when talking about the toxicity and other problems of pesticides. What are we here for if not to try to make links between cause and effect, to try to deal with people's health problems and try to find the source of the problems? My goodness, I cannot believe that such an irresponsible statement came out of the mouth of the member for Malpeque.

Let me ask a question of the Conservative parliamentary secretary, or at least the member was acting like a parliamentary secretary in that he gave the minister's line to defend the Liberal government's pest control act. We are talking about an act that was passed four years ago by Liberals. It has all kinds of problems and today it is being touted as the answer to this concern about pesticides being used on lawns. The Conservatives look more and more like Liberals every day.

I simply want to ask the member how the government could enact this legislation without considering that the legislation is vague? The precautionary principle is not enshrined in the principles of the act. The act does not ban pesticides for cosmetic purposes. There is a lack of fast track registration processes for lower risk products. There is a failure to require labelling of all toxic formulants. There is a failure to commit money for research into the long term effects of pesticides.

How in the world could the Conservative government simply adopt something that was flawed from the Liberals and not have any second thoughts about it?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North knows, we have to have regulations to make an act come into force. The regulations will deal with a lot of the issues that she is talking about. I really believe that once we bring to power the act with the regulations, a lot of the concerns that are being raised by the NDP will be addressed. That, in concert with the efforts being made at the various provincial and municipal levels, will deal with many of the concerns which have been raised in the House today.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in today's debate. It was very interesting to listen to the member for Malpeque talk about his NDP roots. He said that the NDP would turn back the industrial revolution. His party would have taxed it out of existence. Either way it would have been dead under either one of their watches.

It is quite an interesting motion that is before us. The NDP has the right to bring forward any motion it cares to. The NDP always has some arcane thing that will guarantee its members that spot in the corner in perpetuity and never get close to being in government.

The member for Malpeque was making the case that the motion could be extremely intrusive into the way we farm, animal husbandry and a number of other things. The NDP motion states in part that all pesticides which are regulated pursuant to the Pest Control Products Act should be banned within a dwelling house. That is not bad as not too many people keep them in their basement anyway, but the second paragraph states “on any parcel of land on which a dwelling house is situated” and then the next one states “on any place that is within one hundred metres of a parcel of land described in paragraph (ii)”. That is a dwelling house on a parcel of land.

When we travel through the rural countryside there is a lot of crop land and pasture land that comes up to within 100 metres of the house of the farmer or rancher. The NDP is putting restrictions on that farm yard already. In my case, I have a pasture and hay land connected to my house acreage. It would be criminal intent. God forbid, I have my registered gun in the closet and now I have to hide my 2,4-D.

It just escapes me how the NDP could come up with this type of legislation. I know that the leader of the NDP, who is the past president of the FCM, wants to get back in there and make rules and regulations. He wants to be a big fish in a little pond, where here he is a little fish in a big pond and does not get the recognition, so he has to go back and fight some of these fights.

The provinces and municipalities already have the authority to put bans in place so that dangerous products are not used for cosmetic purposes on lawns and so forth and it is not cosmetic use of dangerous stuff. Certainly the labelling has changed on many of the cans of 2,4-D over the years. There is a lot more transparency and accountability in how products are used. Premixed versions can be bought if people are afraid of the real thing. We have used them on the farm for years and we are quite comfortable with them.

I heard a member from one of the ridings in Winnipeg talk about how 50% of our children in Canada are going to get cancer. Scare tactics go a long way with this type of legislation. Certainly the incidence of cancer may be higher for a couple of reasons. We are keeping track and have better records than we used to and people are living longer. At 90 or 95 people are bound to die of something other than old age. It just happens.

I look at this type of motion that the NDP has brought forward. Anyone who does landscaping and has an office on the premises, anyone who has a turf farm and an office, golf courses with rental shacks could not use any type of chemical or pesticide at all. Some of them have gone the biological route and are doing different things. They are using Javex bleach and other things as well, but they have other consequences.

We are tying the hands of many folks who rely on trade and coming up with a product that they can export to the standards that we have with our trading partners, the United States, Japan and others who have much stronger regulatory regimes than we do. We are already going beyond where we need to with regulations.

I will talk about one particular product, 2,4-D. It is one of the oldest chemicals around. It has been registered since 1946. It has been around for 60 plus years. There has not really been any major problem. People should not mix it with Coke; it is not good for them. Most people are smart enough to realize that they should not gargle with the stuff. They should wear gloves and long sleeve shirts. It is called common sense. Those labels are actually on the can or jug. We read that first. Of course, like all men, we like to read maps to get directions so we always read those instructions first. We know enough to be careful with this stuff. There are a lot more noxious problems out there as well.

I drove in this morning and it is the Canadian Tulip Festival in Ottawa. There are beautiful gardens of tulips, yet right across the road the city's lawn is polluted with dandelions because the city no longer sprays anything. It has fallen under this regime. It is the city's choice. It is the city's decision and the citizens of Ottawa will sink or swim with that, but it is the city's decision to make.

The NDP, in presenting this motion, wants the criminal law powers of the federal government to trample over everybody's rights and enforce its twisted logic and that somehow if we do all of this, everybody will be better off.

That is okay, but all of this has to be based on some sort of sound scientific process. We have that through the Canadian government in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. While we may have month by month and case by case battles with that particular agency, it has done a decent job in staying up to speed and getting on top of things. There are a lot of new products out there that the PMRA is very lax on. It is always somewhere between 200 and 400 applications behind. There are brand new, less toxic materials out there that need to get in play in Canada. It is up to the PMRA to move ahead with that, but to totally ban or be able to add to or subtract from this list at the whim of the NDP, or whatever government decides it wants to go there, does not make sound policy.

I know the NDP has a problem with the act that came in four years ago. That act is constantly under review. 2-4,D itself has been reviewed a number of times and always to the betterment of the people using it. The labelling changes, as I mentioned before. There are significant changes in the way we handle and use 2,4-D.

There is a tremendous process that is put in play to register and re-register any of these products on an ongoing basis. The NDP needs to get caught up with that a little. They are always at the forefront, the vanguard of leading the charge on something out there that is going to get us if we do not regulate it out of existence.

Another case in point is the Cartagena protocol. The NDP was really supportive of that and wanted to implement it. That is a global definition of the use and non-use of genetically modified organisms. The problem is we have been doing that for 12 years and still a basic definition has not been agreed to globally as to what a modified organism is. Until we get the framework right, we cannot start hanging the drapes and putting the window dressing in place.

That is what the New Democrats tend to do with these types of motions that come forward. They are well intentioned but miss the mark by 100 miles because they tend to trample on everybody else's jurisdictional rights: the provinces, the municipalities, the RMs in the rural areas and those types of things.

What the New Democrats are looking for is that criminal law power. The thing they are missing is the scientific process that leads to the use or non-use of any of these pesticides and chemicals, whether it is for cosmetic use or use down home on the farm.

Certainly we have to be cognizant of the fact that there can be problems. We need to make sure that they are not tank mixed with certain other products that will incite some reactions. There are a tremendous number of problems out there that people can get into. However, common sense should prevail and science should prevail to make sure that we are doing the right things at the right time.