Debates of May 16th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Pesticides

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if a substance were banned, then there would be no point in storing it because it would not be used. This is a problem. Again, pesticides do have a role to play. People use pesticides for many good reasons. To ban them could cause a lot of unintended consequences.

It is important that we use evidence based science to ensure that pesticides are used in an effective way that will not deter or reduce the health of Canadians or our environment.

When we refer to pesticides, there are many types of different pesticides. To ban all pesticides, because they happen to be a pesticide, is probably not responsible. There are some pesticides that should not be in use, and Health Canada catches those and those are banned. To lump all pesticides together does a disservice to Canada and Canadians. I think the motion, as the member has alluded to, has a lot of unintended consequences.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the previous speaker, if I might, before I begin debate. I am wondering if--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The question and comment period has ended. We are now resuming debate and you have the floor.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Toronto--Danforth, and I do so for a variety of reasons.

If we were to go on the Internet and look at pesticides, it would result in many different opinions. Internet sites are not quality-based and some are not credible sites. They may be evidence-based or not. One could get the whole gamut from pesticides being no problem, to never use them under any circumstances anywhere in the world. In order to formulate my own views about the use of cosmetic pesticides, I tried to look at sites with some evidence-base to them, sites that were reasonably credible, and medical sites where good research had been done.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

I do not know if everybody will remember the Leave It To Beaver show. Everybody had a nice white house with a picket fence and the lawn was absolutely perfect. It was green and gorgeous. I can remember my father looking after our front lawn and people knocking on the door and asking how he managed to get his grass looking so nice. I look back now and I am fearful of what was put on it to make it look so nice. The age of these kinds of front lawns is gone.

I am very concerned about the long term effects of pesticides. Pesticides are designed to kill something. They are not designed in particular to do damage to people, but they are designed to be toxic to certain things. We do not know the longevity of the pesticides that are being used. What concerns me the most is the effect of pesticides on children.

The literature really does not support the concept that some pesticides are safer than others. Children have a different kind of take up rate in the pesticide. We do not know whether there is a different latency period. We do know that young children metabolize substances in their bodies differently than adults. If children are exposed when they are three or four years old, we may not see something until they are 14, 15 or 16 years old because we do not have the ability to see that many years down the road. We cannot assure parents that their children will be safe under those circumstances.

Points have been made by previous speakers about the fact that the Canadian Cancer Society does not support the use of cosmetic pesticides and many cities do not support the use of cosmetic pesticides. Nobody is saying there is a direct link to poor health and pesticides, but we have seen many vulnerable groups of people become at risk for a whole variety of cancers such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, brain cancer, breast cancer, that can be potentially caused by exposure.

Let me give the House an example, and it is a very sad one in many ways. A number of years ago we noticed that there was a lot of spraying going on in a certain part of Canada that had a large forest industry. We noticed also that the rate of infants and children with neural tube defects like spina bifida was about 10 or 15 times what would have been expected in the normal population. It was way more than what we would see in a “statistical glitch”.

Dads were making a living for their family, putting a roof over their heads, feeding their children, and doing the best they could. They were spraying in the forest. They would come home in their work clothes and expose their families to the pesticides that were all over their clothing. They did not know any better.

However, what we did know then was that there were a significant number of youngsters being born with spina bifida and other kinds of neural tube defects. So I do not think that we can guarantee people that it will be safe for them in a few years or in five years or whenever that would be.

It is interesting because the company at the time that was doing the spraying described the deaths as simply collateral damage. The company said that one would expect this from any activity that was going on in order to save the trees not taking into account the number of children that were exposed.

A number of other things that are of concern to me are those very vulnerable groups of people in our society. Children, and I do not mean this to sound facetious, are very short and therefore, because they are small, they are exposed to a whole variety of contaminants that an adult is not, because they are closer to the ground.

They do all these things that we think are wonderful. Our babies pick something up and then they put it in their mouths. That is great, except that means they may very well be more at risk if they have dropped it on the grass outside and there have been pesticides used.

We have seen, I think, a combination or a coming together of moms or dads. Moms in particular, who have worked a lot in gardens and nurseries during their pregnancy, have indeed had a higher incidence of children with difficulties, with a number of difficulties, actually, as a result of the fact that mom had been exposed to pesticides during her pregnancy.

I think the same thing happens with the elderly, who have a different kind of immune system. As we age, and nobody in this House is aging, I am sure, our metabolism changes and we process those contaminants and those pesticides differently than a normal healthy adult might, and so we have no way of knowing what that really might mean.

I am little concerned, I must say. The PMRA is supposed to be re-evaluating 405 pesticides that are registered in Canada to see if they meet current standards by 2006, not the new ones but the ones already registered. My understanding is that 1.5% of those have been evaluated and most of those have been taken off the market after they have been evaluated. I am feeling very uncomfortable not only about the new ones to be evaluated but the ones that have already been approved and that are out there being used on a daily basis.

When we look at the urban and rural split or the urban and rural differences between pesticides, the amount of pesticide on an agricultural acre is far less than we see on an urban acre, which I think is the question one of the members asked earlier. We are talking about cosmetic use of pesticides. Although we could certainly, at some stage, have further debate about whether that should be extended. However, that is not the intent at all. This is cosmetic. If being careful, if testing properly, and if waiting until we have better scientific evidence-based information to look at saves the life of one child or one infant, then surely that is worth doing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member with regard to the health implications as they relate to pesticides and their use.

My question has to do with the mechanics of the motion though. I would refer the member to the final proviso under the exemptions. Under part (d) it states:

that should further exemptions be sought to this pesticide ban, then the onus to prove safety shall be placed on the manufacturer to show to the satisfaction of both the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, through scientific and medical evidence, that an exemption is justified.

Is the member's understanding that if a pesticide is regulated by the Pest Control Products Act, its efficacy for the stated purpose would have been established? It would have either been approved for a specific use and would be safe to do so. It seems there may be a contradiction that the manufacturer somehow has to prove to Health Canada and to the Standing Committee on Health that it is safe when in fact the administration of the Pest Control Products Act has already established whether a product is safe.

The answer may be, and the member may want to comment, that we are talking about the safety in a particular environment as opposed to the safety of the pesticide for use in a specific application.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it could be that it is for a completely different use than the cosmetic pesticide, at which we are looking. Nevertheless, 465 or 405, whatever it is, have already been approved and are being retested and re-evaluated. The 1.5% that have been done have been pulled off the market because they have not been safe.

I am not sure the manufacturers have been able to prove they are safe. They may have been able to prove it before, but in re-evaluation, with more evidence-based medicine available to us, I am not sure they could prove the same outcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about keeping our infants and youth free and clear of coming into contact with pesticides. I am a farmer and I grew up on a farm. I have children on the farm. There is no doubt that there are times when we have pesticides in the yard, when we are spraying equipment, getting ready to go to the fields. However, it is inherent upon me, as the father, to keep my children away from those situations and ensure that we handle the chemicals properly as well as ensure that we handle our clothing properly as the member alluded to earlier. Often someone would walk into the family home with pesticides on their clothing, so we ensure we take the proper precautions to protect our children.

One concern I have with the motion is it is rather lengthy. It has a preamble, then conditions and further conditions tied to it, which virtually make the motion redundant at the end of the day. I believe we are going to present some new regulations this year, with the pesticide act, which will accomplish a lot of the concerns raised in the motion of the NDP.

I am curious as to whether the NDP is prepared to wait until those regulations come forward to make the decision on whether to go ahead with the intent of the motion. As well, a few comments were made today by some of her colleagues that alluded to the fact that for the moment we were talking about cosmetic use of herbicides and pesticides in residential areas. Is there an underlying reason here that the NDP also intends to go after agriculture and the forestry industry in the use of pesticides and herbicides?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think that is the intent at all. I support the member's comments that as a responsible dad, he keeps his children away from pesticides. In a rural area that is what he needs to do because there pesticides are being used for growing purposes and for crops.

However, we are not able as parents to protect our children from rolling around in the soccer field, if they are playing soccer, or rolling around in a playground, or in the backyard or whatever. We cannot protect them from all that without putting them in a bubble. We cannot provide the same kind of protection in an urban area.

It is not the intention of the motion to prevent the member from carrying on his profession.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this issue today. I know it is an issue for many of my constituents. Ottawa tried unsuccessfully to bring in a pesticide. One of the reasons it is important to have it in this place and to have the federal government take ownership of it is that many other municipalities want this kind of law. They look to the federal government for leadership.

In recent years the issue of non-essential use of pesticides on public and private property has become an important issue with residents and municipalities across Canada. This is happening because of the evolving scientific evidence showing a relationship between the use of pesticides and health risks for humans, particularly pregnant women, children and seniors.

Environmental evidence is also showing that pesticides harm species other than those that are targeted, including household pets and wildlife, and that should be acknowledged as well.

Today we are asking our colleagues to support a motion that would place a moratorium on pesticide use for esthetic purposes and would invoke the precautionary principle for future regulations. This would place the onus on the manufacturer of any pesticide that seeks exemption in the future to prove safety to the satisfaction of both the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health through scientific and medical evidence.

It is important to note the 2003 Auditor General's report found inadequacies on the part of our Pest Management Regulatory Agency that has been referred to today. The report said:

The federal government is not adequately ensuring that many pesticides used in Canada meet current standards for protecting the health and quality of the environment.

Second:

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, a branch of Health Canada, has developed a sound framework for evaluating pesticides, but key elements of the evaluation process need to be strengthened (i.e. needs to use up-to-date evaluation methods; ensure that it has adequate information to complete the evaluations).

The Auditor General went on to say:

Health and environmental standards relating to pesticide use have risen, but the progress made in re-evaluating older, widely used pesticides against them has been very slow. All pesticides re-evaluated to date were found to pose significant health or environmental risks, at least for some uses.

The result of these inadequacies is overuse by a population who assume that products they are using are safe because they've been tested.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is also noted, as I mentioned before, that there are no Canadian licensed medical doctors on the staff of the PMRA. Currently, the PMRA is re-evaluating, my colleague mentioned, some 405 pesticides that are registered in Canada to determine if they meet current standards. To date, 1.5% have been fully re-evaluated. What are the results of that revaluation? All 100% of the cases of the pesticide has either been removed from the market or have had their permitted uses restricted.

We would like to see a more active precautionary principle put in place that would put a stop to the sale and application of these products until it is shown that they do not pose unacceptable health risks, a very reasonable submission.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians has recommended that people reduce their exposure to pesticides were possible. Through a comprehensive review of pesticide research, it confirmed the link between exposure to pesticides and health risks that include the following: cancer such as prostate, kidney, pancreatic, brain cancers, neurological diseases, leukemia and birth defects.

Vulnerable patient groups for pesticide health effects are pregnant women, as I mentioned. That is a special risk group because we are talking about more than just one person. There was an increased risk of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia when women used pesticides in the home garden during pregnancy. Children are constantly exposed to low levels of pesticides in their food and the environment with no studies on the long term effects. The college reviewed several studies that found an elevated risk of kidney cancer, brain cancer with parental exposure through agriculture. Some children have overall increased risk of acute leukemia if exposed to pesticides, in utero or during childhood.

Pesticides are designed to kill something. Reducing exposure is probably the best thing to do. Those were the findings of the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

I believe all Canadians deserve the same protection. Over 75 municipalities have adopted pesticide bylaws: Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, as well as the entire province of Quebec. Thirty-five per cent or Canadians presently live in communities that have already moved to restrict the use of pesticides as we are proposing. We need to bring this to a level of protection to 100% of all Canadians. Pesticide manufacturers need to prove that their products are safe before they can be marketed to the Canadian public.

In my opinion the time for debate has past. It is time for concrete action by the federal government to ban the use of these unnecessary chemicals now. Currently, only Australia, Italy, France, Belgium and the U.S. use more pesticides per capita than Canada. The average urban acre in Canada, and this is important to my friends from rural Canada, receives more pesticides than the average agricultural acre. There may be a myth there of which some are not aware.

Similar to second hand smoke, there is no way of assuring that there will be no unintended effects of pesticide use. Pesticides drift in the air. They seep into the soil and into our waterways. Children are at a greater risk because of their small size, fast metabolism and because they generally play closer to the ground.

The Canadian Cancer Society and our doctors are telling us that even when used as directed, these and the unintended effects within pesticides are risky. We must take this into account.

When we take a look at this, the perfect lawn is still possible, if that is a concern, through alternative methods and integrated pest management solutions. We can all pull dandelions, spread clover and hire lawn care companies. In fact, employment has gone up in areas where they have pesticide laws such as we are proposing. We can use organic landscape solutions. No one would deny the right to a healthy lawn. Homeowners can control inspect pests by using other methods and naturally occurring microscopic worms work wonderful.

The dangers of pesticides must be weighed against the benefits, which in most cases are purely cosmetic. Aggregate scientific evidence and the precautionary principle support the need for a cosmetic ban on pesticides.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we all can be very concerned about the use of pesticides. We all want to ensure that in the future we have a safe environment for our families and our children as well.

I have a couple of concerns and then a question. I tend to concur with my colleague from Selkirk--Interlake with respect to what the ultimate objective of the motion is and where it might go in terms of the thin edge of the wedge.

I also have another concern. The member who spoke previously used words like “I think” when asked about her interpretation of the motion. In anything we introduce in the House, we should know where we want to go with it.

I also have a question on the apparent inconsistency in the clauses which states in paragraph (a)(v):

...customarily used by members of the public as visitors, licensees or in any other authorized capacity for recreation or entertainment, including but not limited to parks and sports grounds.

Then in (c) it says that it does not apply to control or destroy pests that could have caused an infestation. It either is or it is not. If there is infestation in a field, does that mean we can use the chemical or pesticide?

What is the hon. member's interpretation of that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that 35% of Canadians are protected by such a law. This has not been an issue in terms of being concerned about it.

I reference the analogy of black helicopters flying around and conspiracy theories. The member should not worry. We are not into that. We are talking about what is in front of us today, and that is 35% of Canadians enjoy a law like this.

What we have to ensure for public health is that there is no unintended effect. If there is a need to use a pesticide because of an outbreak, those levers are there. It is straight and simple. That kind of provision has been provided in the bylaws of other jurisdictions and municipalities. Therefore, we are conforming to that.

If there is a need because of health concerns of an outbreak, then they would be allowed. That is why it is there.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, item (c) states that this ban does not apply “to a control product used within an enclosed building...”. I am not sure whether that enclosed building includes a dwelling-house. I assume some would argue that it does, but the motion says this does not apply if the product is used within an enclosed building and is used “as an insect repellent for personal use”.

Does this mean that one can only use a personal insect repellent inside an enclosed building, that one cannot go outside that enclosed building and use the insect repellent?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the microscopic detail with which my colleagues are examining this. It is important. I think what we are referring to here is that when there is an outbreak, people are able to use products to help them with outbreaks within their own homes. I will simply refer again to the restriction of the cosmetic use of pesticides. Again, I will simply point to where it has been used in other jurisdictions. We are simply mirroring the concerns people might have about other appropriate uses. That is why it is there.

Asking about deciding where and when one applies repellent for insects is spurious, I think. This is about being able to use it effectively when there is a legitimate concern in an indoor setting. That is why this is there, and indeed, as it has been mirrored in Toronto and other jurisdictions where there are laws in place.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, Canada Post; the hon. member for West Nova, Veterans.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Québec has the floor.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was afraid I would not be able to give my speech. I thought the time allocated for debates was up. Thus, I am pleased to see that it was just a short interruption.

The motion before us today in Parliament is presented by the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, beginning on the 22nd day of April (Earth Day) next:

a) all pesticides which are regulated pursuant to the Pest Control Products Act be banned (i) within a dwelling-house, (ii) on any parcel of land on which a dwelling-house is situated, (iii) on any place that is within one hundred metres of a parcel of land described in paragraph (ii), (iv) in any school, hospital, office or similar building in which members of the public customarily stay for more than a day or work, or (v) on any private or public land that is customarily used by members of the public as visitors, licensees or in any other authorized capacity for recreation or entertainment, including but not limited to parks and sports grounds;

b) that this ban not apply to a building used for the husbandry of animals, the cultivation of plants or the storage, processing, packaging or distribution of plants or animals or products made primarily from plants or animals, or in the immediate vicinity of such a building;

c) that this ban not apply to a control product used within an enclosed building: to purify water intended for the use of humans or animals; to control or destroy a health hazard; to control or destroy pests that have caused an infestation; for commercial agricultural purposes; as a wood preservative; or as an insect repellent for personal use; and

d) that should further exemptions be sought to this pesticide ban, then the onus to prove safety shall be placed on the manufacturer to show to the satisfaction of both the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, through scientific and medical evidence, that an exemption is justified.

That is the motion introduced today regarding a ban on the use of pesticides in certain places. The Bloc Québécois reminds this government and the other parties that this motion encroaches on the jurisdictions of the provinces. In Quebec, we already have legislation, and Quebec has full jurisdiction over pesticides in regard to the regulation of their sale, use, storage, transportation and elimination. These five areas are under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, in this case Quebec.

The Government of Quebec is well acquainted with the particular nature of the places in question and is also able to arouse the interest of the public. It has a pesticide management code, which sets stringent standards for their use and sale.

What the NDP is proposing today would infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec in particular. These are shared jurisdictions. Some responsibilities, we grant, are also delegated to the municipalities.

This motion shows that the NDP would like to see the municipal, provincial and federal levels all merge and would like to see only one government. These bills just ride roughshod over the responsibilities of the provinces. However, they are not going in the right direction. They should put pressure, instead, on the provincial health ministers. If some provinces do not have legislation that meets their concerns, they should put pressure on the provincial governments and municipalities to pass stricter laws. In any case, there should be better control over the management of pesticides and the standards should be stricter, more stringent.

In Quebec, we regulate pesticides and their use. We are aware of the problem. I do not think that this is a matter for the federal government.

The federal government is able to approve a product, but once it is registered, the provinces are in charge of its transportation, storage, and use as well as the regulation of the sale of pesticides. This is not a federal responsibility. The Pest Control Products Act and Regulations govern federal activity.

The federal government is responsible therefore for approving pesticides. To ensure that they are safe, their toxicity must be evaluated according to criteria established by the Food and Drugs Act. That is what the federal government does. Here they want the federal government to control other aspects of these pesticides once it has evaluated and registered them, after ensuring that they are non-toxic and safe for families, children and the public. But that is the extent of the federal government’s responsibilities.

As I was saying, by virtue of their jurisdiction over local or private matters, the provinces regulate the sale, use, storage, transportation and elimination of registered pesticides. Municipalities also have certain duties. Depending on what the federal or provincial governments ask of them, they can regulate certain aspects, particularly the use of pesticides on public and private land.

We do notice this real will to merge all the parliaments and create just one. They would like to get the government to form just one unit, that is, the federal government. It would then be free to legislate and manage certain acts, instead of leaving the real responsibilities to those whose jurisdiction it actually is. Responsibility at the federal level is very clear and I would like it to remain there.

Let us make the link with the new Public Health Agency and let us examine the responsibilities of Health Canada. A while ago, some members criticized some products that apparently were approved by Health Canada, some 100 of which were withdrawn from the market. In their opinion, such products are not checked quickly enough. This is indeed one of the responsibilities of Health Canada, but the department remains incapable of assuming it.

We know that a lot of public servants work at Health Canada. The Standing Committee on Health has just studied a bill respecting the Public Health Agency. Two thousand public servants work there and it has taken on other responsibilities that actually fall within provincial jurisdictions. Here we can really see that habit of wanting to invade the provinces’ areas of jurisdiction. Still, if they want to invade, they have to be ready, since it is a huge bureaucracy. Often in the decentralization processes, citizens are close to their provincial government and the municipalities whereas the federal government governs something else. That is where the responsibilities get confused.

Since this is a shared jurisdiction, Quebec and the provinces have the power to legislate to prohibit the use of registered pesticides or to add more restrictive conditions on the use of products than those set under the Pest Control Products Act.

Under their exclusive jurisdictions in local and private matters, however, Quebec and the provinces have the power to oversee the classification of pesticides for sale and use, the issue of licences to dealers and distributors, the issue of training certificates, the issue of licences for operators, the issue of permits to use certain pesticides, display and notification standards, and matters of transportation, storage and elimination of pesticides.

It is very clear. We can see that the areas of jurisdiction are very clear when it comes to local and private matters. Why not help Quebec and the provinces more to offer services to the people and be more proactive by putting pressure on certain provinces?

It is perhaps not the situation in Quebec. Earlier, it was said that some provinces had not managed to better regulate the use of pesticides and that the federal government had to help with this motion by banning certain uses. In my opinion, the intention of the NDP is very clear. It would like the federal government to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction instead of putting pressure in the right places.

Furthermore, Quebec carried out broad consultations. It did its homework. Pesticide management ensued from comprehensive consultations carried out in 1998 by the environment department. These consultations followed in the wake of recommendations by the Groupe de réflexion sur les pesticides en milieu urbain , which had as its initial mandate to identify potential solutions that would allow Quebeckers to reduce their dependence given the risks of exposure to pesticides. Once again, it is clear that Quebec has met expectations on regulations on the use of pesticides. It has established a code of pesticide management.

In March 2002, the Groupe de réflexion sur les pesticides en milieu urbain tabled its report on the protection of health and the environment by managing the environment in urban settings. It contained 15 recommendations. Some of the provisions of the code of pesticide management came into effect in April 2003. In 2006, the last part of the code came into effect. It bans not only the sale but also the use of pesticides containing some 20 identified active ingredients found in nearly 200 household pesticides. Here again we see that Quebec clearly does its homework. I do not know where the provinces in Canada stand on this, but we do not support the motion. It is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

The pesticide management code includes a range of strong measures intended both for private individuals and persons who hold a permit or certificate required under the Regulation respecting permits and certificates for the sale and use of pesticides. This applies to businesses selling pesticides and commercial and private users, including farmers and foresters.

This management code bans the use of the most harmful pesticides on grassy areas in public, para-public and municipal green spaces. That is why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this motion. Without naming all of them, I would like to point out that the Government of Quebec bans 17 products in this pesticide management code. Several of its most important recommendations and elements are included in the NDP motion.

I will give examples of places where the use of pesticides is banned. In day cares, early childhood learning centres, pre-schools and primary and secondary schools, only a biopesticide or a specifically designated pesticide can be applied inside or outside. As hon. members can see, we are quite vigilant. That is not to say that we do not take the issue of pesticide use seriously. However, Quebec has the necessary framework for using pesticides wisely. The code also bans the use of these biopesticide products or specifically designated pesticides during care, teaching or activity periods that take place inside or outside the establishment.

Earlier an hon. member from the NDP said she was quite worried because in rural areas children are kept away when farmers use pesticides, but in urban areas children are left to their own devices and can roll around on the grass, which could be harmful to their health.

In Quebec, the framework for certain bans on the use of pesticides was well evaluated. Personally, I find this management code reassuring. We should ensure that such a code applies in all the provinces. The provinces and the municipalities are better positioned to consider this framework.

In fact, these standards meet Quebeckers' expectations, and Quebec controls them much more easily than the federal government could. The pesticides management code already sets very strict standards.

This regulation is one of the most innovative in North America. The Government of Quebec states that the environmental management approach that this framework advocates would limit the non-essential use of pesticides to the bare essentials in matters of lawn maintenance, with public, semi-public and municipal property as well as day care centres particularly in mind, as I said earlier.

We must not lose sight of the main objective of regulation in Quebec and the provinces. Although pesticides are useful, they can seriously affect people's health. We are aware of this. People are increasingly concerned about the harmful effects that pesticides of all kinds have on health. That is why the Government of Quebec developed a framework and a management method. It knows that children and other people who come in contact with pesticides are vulnerable. Some products are extremely dangerous. Health Canada should check some products much more quickly and, in some cases, even determine whether registration is always desirable and safe. This is where the federal government has a role to play, not in prohibiting pesticides.

According to the Coalition pour les alternatives aux pesticides, the damage caused by pesticides must not be overlooked. The Bloc is well aware of this. Toxicologists who used to say that pesticides were not very dangerous are now changing their tune.

This is why we should ensure that Health Canada has all of the necessary resources to run the approval process and to re-evaluate certain products to determine whether they should still be approved for use. This is where federal responsibility lies and where it should provide some structure. Why is the government so slow to review certain products? Are there too few government workers? I think that we are going about this the wrong way by considering a motion that would increase federal responsibility even more.

The new government promised not to interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction, not to add to a bureaucracy that is often costly and that makes it difficult to ensure the efficiency of every program and every federal action for the entire population.

This is why we have federal and provincial jurisdictions. We must respect them. The federal government has a lot of responsibilities, including the effects of tobacco use and the Tobacco Act. This week, members of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association came to tell me about their concerns and about how Health Canada has been slow to regulate tobacco use for mild or light cigarettes. Once again, we do not know whether the federal government will act quickly to show the population that these types of cigarette are very harmful to their health. Some countries adopted anti-tobacco legislation after us, and they have already brought in regulations governing mild and light cigarettes.

I believe that Parliament has a lot on its plate and that we should not add much more. It is even behind on many issues, including keeping its promises and developing bills and certain regulations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the presentation by the hon. member for Québec. However, I was also saddened by her presentation. While she spoke of the whole constitutional aspect of this debate, she did not speak of the impact of these pesticides on the lives of Quebeckers. Basically, this is the problem at the moment. Quebeckers are as affected by the rise in the incidence of cancer in this country as are the rest of Canadians.

Organizations in Quebec are calling for something to be done to fight this cancer epidemic. Municipalities in Quebec, such as Hudson and Montreal, have taken this matter very seriously. People in Quebec are calling for the same thing as people living elsewhere in Canada. There is a problem, and Quebeckers are looking for answers. This was seen recently with the rise of the NDP in Quebec and also, of course, with the Québec solidaire party. People are calling for solutions to the problems.

I am saddened by the Bloc Québécois' cavalier dismissal of a question as important as this one for Quebeckers.

In this regard, here is my question for the hon. member. As so many Quebeckers are calling for something to be done and action to be taken to reduce the incidence of cancer, which is ravaging the country, why is the Bloc rejecting the solution being proposed today by the NDP?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I spoke about respecting jurisdictions. The motion before us today would amount to saying that we agree to let the federal government interfere in the provinces' jurisdictions.

The hon. member says that I was not very sensitive with regard to the development of certain cancers that are allegedly linked to pesticide use.

Why, then, in Quebec did a think tank on pesticides in urban communities issue a whole report in 2002? I did not mention every aspect of this report. In the space of a page and a half, it recommends banning 17 products. We have to do our homework.

Certainly people are concerned. I too am concerned. But I think that the provincial governments must be allowed to act. It is up to them to decide what type of framework they want to have.

I am a bit surprised at the member's speech. He says that people are concerned and he asks the federal government to act. In my opinion, we could tell the people that the federal government will spend so many million dollars and that Health Canada or the new public health agency will need so many thousand employees, but we still will not know whether the programs will be effective or not.

Is that what people want? In my opinion, if we gave the various provinces more tools, financially speaking, perhaps they could move forward with more far-reaching programs.

The hon. member claims that we are not sensitive enough and that he is saddened by that. I hope he will get over it. I do not believe I was lacking sensitivity when it comes to the use of pesticides. I am just saying that today's motion does not respect the various provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

The use of pesticides in homes is already banned in Quebec. A management code has been implemented. We should invite the provinces to move forward instead. We need to raise awareness in the provinces where they think there are no far-reaching actions or concrete enough actions to fight pesticide use. Pesticides are very hazardous to health, I agree. An awareness campaign on pesticide use can be carried out in all the provinces. Over the past few years, the public has become more aware of the dangers of pesticide use.

I would like to come back to the products that have been approved and those that would have come off the market.

Does the hon. member not think this is what we should be talking about? What types of products are approved? Perhaps these products were approved a number of years ago. Are these products still compliant? In my opinion, the federal government should be focusing much more on that aspect of the issue rather than managing the use of pesticides. After that there could be awareness programs and then the government could see whether all Canadians were respecting the federal standard. In my opinion, we are going at this from the wrong angle.

I am sorry to have saddened the hon. member, but I think I have helped him save money. I invite him to tell the provinces he thinks are reluctant and have not done their homework with the public, and the municipalities, to intervene as soon as possible because it is their responsibility.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Québec on her presentation. She expressed the opinion of the majority of Quebeckers on the topic the NDP is putting forward today.

Quebec, through its health department, has already legislated the use of pesticides. I have a grassy area in front of my house and I have not used pesticides on it in at least two years. Since the regulation came into effect I have been using organic fertilizer. This is well respected in Quebec. I am certain that in the other provinces of Canada, the provincial health departments are addressing this. We are very much concerned by this issue.

The only problem is that we are opening up an additional discussion on the federal level. It is as though we wanted to supplant provincial activities that appear to be ineffective in matters of regulation. By doing this, the responsibilities are overlapped. We end up with tax levels that everyone in Canada finds overwhelming since we have municipal, provincial and, on top of it all, federal regulations.

I want to know whether my colleague agrees with what I am saying. This explains why the House uses a full day of session for a subject that is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

Is it because there is a lack of imagination or a lack of subjects that concern the federal government that we could discuss in this House? We could talk about the workers assistance program or programs for improving employment insurance. That would be of greater relevant to the federal government. I will leave it up to my colleague from Québec to answer this question.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize how sensitive the NDP is to the use of pesticides. However, I believe that it is barking up the wrong tree by putting forward a motion that would encroach upon areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I agree with my colleague. Many municipalities have laws that ban the use of pesticides. In my opinion, recalcitrant municipalities should be urged to follow suit. I look at municipalities in the Quebec City area and elsewhere in Quebec. They did their homework and took an approach that was much more socially responsible in order to raise awareness about the potential effects of certain pesticides.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the very talented member for St. Catharines.

The subject of this motion is very close to my first-hand experience. I actually have had the privilege to farm all my life. I had first-hand experience with chemicals. I have used them on a continuous basis as far back as I can remember.

I also have to say that I am no fan of pesticides and chemicals. I do not know a farmer who really is, but I do know that they are essential for us when the agriculture community has a problem and when individuals have problems with pests of some sort. Whether it is weeds and they use a herbicide, or a pest as far as some sort of infestation of a crop goes, it must be dealt with in some way.

We have to consider this motion in light of the products being used that have a considerable advantage for the agriculture community and for domestic use within Canada in the sense of dealing with a problem, but I do not know anyone who really likes the chemicals. Farmers do not use them because they like to use them. They use them because they have to use them. They are also very expensive to use. They are not cheap and not very nice to deal with, but farmers do it because they have to deal with a problem.

This motion that we are debating in the House today is an interesting motion. I believe it is fraught with ideology. I look at the very first line and I think that really says where the NDP is going or wants to go with herbicides and pesticides in Canada. The NDP, says the motion, would like to ban all those pesticides that are regulated under the regulations we have in the country today. That is the NDP ideology. We all understand that and we all know where that party is coming from on it.

The motion has parts (a), (b), (c) and (d). It is really interesting when we get to (d), which states that if the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health can be satisfied, Canadians can be exempted from those chemicals or can use those chemicals if they can prove they are safe products. I am privileged to chair the health committee and many members here sit on that committee.

What the NDP is really suggesting, then, is that all the products registered in Canada today are not safe, even if used according to the label. I think that is a false statement. I believe it is something that the NDP cannot validate with any kind of facts or scientific proof. It is because of this that the NDP is trapped in the ideology that all herbicides are bad and should be banned for use in Canada regardless of where they are used. What the NDP motion is really saying is that pesticides should be banned in every dwelling-house, in every home, whether it is in a rural community or an urban setting.

I, for one, would like to suggest that we would be much wiser to discern whether these products have a health risk or not. If the product does not have a health risk, and if we can label them properly, identify them properly and use them appropriately, I suggest that they are safe and appropriate to be used in Canada.

When we are trapped in ideology, though, it usually leads us into all kinds of ridiculous statements and positions. If we were to take an ideological perspective on this, we could say that we should get rid of all table salt because a person could use an extreme amount of table salt, which could be very damaging and could kill individuals. We can say the same thing about sugar and all sorts of products.

Let us take another example. Let us talk about pharmaceuticals. The NDP members are wonderful advocates of pharmaceuticals for this country. In fact, the NDP would like to see every man, woman and child in Canada have all pharmaceuticals paid for by the state. The NDP has been very open and clear about that.

Nonetheless, we have study after study showing that pharmaceuticals are killing hundreds of thousands of individuals in Canada. In fact, the number is 24,000 people per year, according to the Baker-Norton study, who die inside hospitals due to adverse events. That does not count the other ones who may be dying and probably are, and we all know they are because of the extreme amounts of pharmaceuticals that are used in seniors' homes and inappropriately used by ordinary Canadians. I am not against pharmaceuticals even though they are a tremendous hazard if inappropriately used by the population of Canada.

It is when we get trapped by ideology that I find the debate in the House is sometimes very shallow and hollow. We cannot really talk logically and convince anyone that this is an inappropriate motion if the ideology is that all pesticides are to be banned in a country. If that is the premise of the motion, then let us just have a vote on it, because I do not think any debate here is going to change anyone's mind.

In this situation, we cannot talk about some of the facts before us and deal with them appropriately, but let us look at some of the facts, because I think we have to make sure Canadians understand that a lot of the pesticides that are approved in Canada have gone through rigorous testing and examination and have actually stood the test of time with the science we had at the time they were being approved for use in Canada.

At the time, I think there were 550 active ingredients found in 77,000 different products registered in Canada under the Pest Control Products Act. As for the Pest Control Products Act, 141 active ingredients were registered before 1995. I had the privilege of sitting on the health committee when the committee examined this back in 2001 or 2002. The commitment was made that we were to review these products so that we would bring them up to speed to make sure products were not being allowed onto the market that should not be. That was a commitment made by Health Canada.

I believed that it was very appropriate for us to do that because it had been a considerable time, and I believe it was back in the 1960s, since some of these products had been reviewed. They were on the market at that time and science had improved. We had, and I believe have, the opportunity to convince scientists, researchers and ordinary Canadians that these products are safe, and if they are not safe, we have the opportunity to remove them in an appropriate way so they can be used for the benefit of all Canadians where they need to be used. the benefit of all Canadians.

Let us look at the rigorous testing and re-evaluations. We find at least three things. The first is that when Health Canada announced the undertaking of the re-evaluation, it requested the submission of all available science and information, not only from here in Canada but internationally, from countries such as the United States, Australia or any of the OECD nations. That was so we would be working not only with our own experience but with international experience on some of these products. I think it is a wise thing for us to do, because if herbicides are dangerous to people from Europe, the United States or Australia, they are dangerous for Canadians too. We are no different. The hazards are the same. I think this was a wise thing for the CPCPA to be doing.

The second thing is that it was saying there should be public comment, that the people of Canada should be asked exactly what they were seeing and experiencing with regard to some of these active ingredients. Let us make sure for these pesticides, it said, that any adverse events are reported and dealt with appropriately and, if anything is unsafe, that it be phased out in an appropriate way. All of those things are good, because science has improved in every area of life and the science of being able to evaluate and re-evaluate these products is no different.

Since the re-evaluation has taken place, 53% of the active ingredients on the shelves today have been dealt with, and for 80 of those the manufacturers themselves chose to not produce them any more. Part of it is because the science has improved so much. When we examined this in committee we found that some of the new products that are available because of the new science were not being allowed in as fast as we would have liked. We wanted that because they were so much safer.

We wanted to encourage them to proceed a little faster on that side of it, but in the re-evaluations, 80 of those have been taken off, 9 of them have been decided to be phased out, 77 were accepted with some modifications and 4 were to be left alone with no change.

We can see what has actually happened with the re-evaluation. We must realize that it takes four to seven years before a product can be allowed onto the shelves in Canada and be used for commercial or domestic use. I am a strong advocate--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I tried to get the hon. member's attention to let him know that his time was winding down but he did not look at the Chair. Your time is up and we will have to proceed to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's presentation but it seems to come down to this. When he says “we” I guess he means either a Conservative or Liberal administration, but when he says that we have not done anything about other epidemics that exist in the country, and he mentions the 24,000 deaths a year because of pharmaceutical products in Canadian hospitals, he seems to be saying that since we have not done anything about that we do not need to do anything about pesticides. That, to me, is absolutely convoluted logic.

We have the power in this House to put forward measures that will make a difference in the lives of Canadians and will cut the epidemic of cancer that is growing among all age groups because we were given that responsibility through the voters? It is not a question of saying that we have not done anything about these other issues so why tackle pesticides. That is a philosophy of irresponsibility.

We have the responsibility as members of Parliament to take action in areas. We know that pesticides have contributed to the epidemic of cancers. Since we know that people die as a result, we have the responsibility to take actions that are responsible and take actions that lead to nipping in the bud an epidemic that is killing Canadians.

Why would the member oppose a measure that would help Canadians and help save Canadian lives?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is about being trapped in ideology that I believe the NDP members are into. When it comes to pharmaceuticals we know that pharmaceuticals need to be used. A lot of work has been done on that. A patient safety institute has been struck. We have a medical records file, hopefully following the patient much more quickly. We are a little nervous about how slow that is happening but we are determined to ensure it happens. I believe it will be a catalyst on the pharmaceutical side to deal with. I therefore do not think it is accurate to say that nothing is being done.

It is important to understand that the regulations under pesticides in Canada are seen as being safe. We have the healthiest food products in all the world. We should be very proud of that as Canadians. We have very strong regulations on these products and if they are used according to the label they are perfectly safe, albeit in my experience with these products I do not like using them but I do use them, as do all Canadians. The only reason most of us use them from time to time is because we have a problem that needs to be dealt with.

They are very expensive and difficult to use but to say that pesticides are causing all the cancers in Canada is totally false. There is no science to say that is where it is coming from. I could say the same thing about the lack of bran in our diets or the inappropriate use of cigarettes or other products that are causing much more cancers than we are seeing in pesticides if we look at the numbers.

In saying that, I am not a fan of pesticides but this is an inappropriate way to deal with it. I believe a much wiser way would be to ensure the science is accurate, that Canadians are safe and that the re-evaluations are done appropriately. That is the way we need to go, not this motion.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during today's debate, the Bloc Québécois showed that there are structural shortcomings. We are in a federal institution, and we are talking about municipal jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions, provincial-federal ones, or just federal ones.

Nevertheless, my question for the member for Yellowhead is as follows: How can he say to a person dying of a pesticide-related cancer that this is just an ideological issue?

We must go beyond that and not blame the person. I am sure the member's approach is informed by an ideology he agrees with. Yet how can he say such a thing when a person is diagnosed with a pesticide-related cancer? I would hope that goes beyond ideology.

I would like to hear his comments on this.