Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate. It has been a very instructive and informative debate on the issue of pesticides and their impact on health.
One of the reasons I want to speak to this issue is that back in 1979 there was a train derailment in Mississauga. The train was carrying a number of chemicals, pesticides, chlorines and toluenes, all kinds of very dangerous goods. There was a lot of concern. The entire city was evacuated, some 250,000 people. I remember sleeping on someone's floor for three or four days while the problem was dealt with.
There was a firefighter who had received some serious lung damage as a consequence of this derailment. It was back at that time that I first realized the risk that firefighters are put in when they go out to do their duty.
Over the years we in this place have talked a lot about such things as that type of exposure and that the life expectancy of firefighters is about five years lower than the national average. As a consequence the House passed a motion that actually increased the accrual rate in the Canada pension plan to allow firefighters to earn a full Canada pension plan benefit based on a shortened career. Usually by age 50 many firefighters cannot meet the physical requirements.
The issue of chemicals and pesticides in our society is a matter of serious health importance. It affects us in many different ways.
I congratulate the NDP for bringing forward the motion and explaining to Canadians some of the facts and the figures about the health impacts of pesticide use in our everyday lives.
I was most concerned about the experience that the Pest Control Products Act and the agency have had in terms of going back and looking at pesticides which had previously been approved as safe for use. Now we find that amendments to legislation that were considered have been delayed in terms of their implementation to get the changes made to the act, because of the number of changed opinions on certain aspects of pesticides regulated by the Pest Control Products Act.
I have to make this very clear because it is important that members understand this. This is a supply day motion. It is a votable motion. It is binding on the government. Many members, including myself, have raised some small points of detail that maybe there are some unintended consequences. I have heard this in other members' speeches. I am concerned that the motion may fail because of a minor technicality or a small nuance that had not been detected.
I asked the mover of the motion whether he would consider a minor amendment. The minor amendment would basically be at the beginning where the motion says, “That, in the opinion of the House,” and it would state “that the government consider the advisability that”. It makes it that the issue is still to be considered but it does express clearly the opinion of the House. It would make all the difference in the world.
By the end of my speech I am hoping to seek a head nod that the NDP members would consider an amendment that they would have to approve to their motion, if they so wished. I think there are many members in this place who would like to vote for this motion because they understand that this does not hurt rural circumstances. There are enough exemptions.
For instance, even with regard to schools, hospitals and dwellings, there is an exemption that in a closed building, the chemicals that are regulated under the act could be used, as long as they were addressing an infestation or other need to destroy pests.
We are on the horns of a dilemma here, and I think members understand that. There is no member in this place who does not understand that the concoction of chemicals that we use in everyday life, which are probably under our kitchen sinks are much the same.
Before I became a member of Parliament I used to be the treasurer of the United Co-operatives of Ontario, an agricultural co-op. This co-op was into seeds and grains as well as chemicals and fertilizers. I visited every one of its 103 retail outlets across the province of Ontario. I knew it when I went into the area where the pesticides were stored, because I could smell them even though they were in unopened packages. There was something in the air.
This motion basically says that there are a lot of things that we do not see because the concentrations may not be high enough. We know from history that there are a lot of cases where even small doses over a continuous period of time can build up and the impact will not be realized until some threshold of concentration builds up in the lungs or somewhere else in the body.
In this place we have talked a lot about environmental impacts. We have talked a lot about things like the impact of particulate matter even with regard to climate change and greenhouse gases. Many of the processes that create greenhouse gases also create particulate matter, which means that is a threat to the health of Canadians as well. Greenhouse gas reductions and climate change priorities are important because they are health issues as well.
Today's debate is extremely important, but the motion has some problems. If the motion were an act of Parliament, if we just numbered the clauses and gave it the details, I am pretty sure the words in the motion would not pass the sniff test. They would not pass through a committee. They would have to be amended substantially. Parliament is faced with voting on this motion. There is no chance to amend it. There is no chance to make it better. It is just a matter of voting on it and it becomes law because the government will be bound to enforce it. That is unfortunate because the motion's intent is good.
I am going to support the motion regardless. That is why I am speaking here. I am going to support it on the basis of its intent, but I certainly want to raise the issue about the form. Most members who spoke to this motion talked about it being difficult to read and maybe a little too detailed. It raised the spectre that there may be unintended consequences.
I also raised the issue earlier about jurisdictional responsibilities. It is not inconsequential to legislation. Other jurisdictions have jurisdiction over the use of pesticides in their own municipalities and regions. There are some points that could be discussed.
I hope Canadians appreciate that the most important thing is that Parliament today raised yet again an important issue with regard to the health and well-being of Canadians, but not in a draconian fashion dealing with the economic viability of agriculture in Canada, nor would it interfere with business or industry in the normal case. The motion cautions all Canadians that when they use pesticides on their properties, in their homes and in and around places the public occupies, remnants linger and there are potential problems over the longer term. It is an important caveat for all of us to know.
I want to support this motion. I would like to move an amendment that after the word “that” the words “in the opinion of the House” be deleted and that they be replaced with the words “the government consider the advisability that”. It would now read “That the government consider the advisability that beginning on April 22”, et cetera. I would ask the consent of the mover to move this amendment.