Debates of May 16th, 2006

Oral Questions

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think this is an important issue. I wonder if the minister would take this opportunity to indicate if there is a new process available for passport administration, where, without any requirement for personal appearances at passport offices, members of Parliament may deliver documents on behalf of their constituents in person to the minister for direct processing by the minister where those passports originate from remote locations or in emergency circumstances. If that is in fact a new administrative procedure, it could be very helpful.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is a longstanding practice that members of Parliament can pick up documents and deliver them to passport offices. They can very simply, on behalf of their constituents, process these passport applications. They can bring them to Ottawa on their behalf. It has been a longstanding practice and the member opposite knows full well that this is the case.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I cannot understand how this affects the rules of the House and therefore I do not believe this is a point of order. We have had a sort of mini-debate. I invite hon. members to ask more questions another day, but we cannot prolong question period under the guise of points of order. With all due respect, that is what we are getting.

I will hear from the hon. member for Charlottetown. I believe he is rising on another point.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order regarding the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services regarding the alleged contract made between Minto Developments and the Government of Canada. Last week he indicated there was no deal, but now he has indicated that there was a letter of intent.

I have dealt with hundreds of these. This letter of intent, if it is like similar letters of intent, would set out all the terms of the lease agreement, including the time, the lease payments, the covenants and the conditions. The only way any party could get out of the letter of intent would be if there were a violation of a condition precedent.

Very much so, there was an agreement between the Government of Canada and Minto Developments. The hon. parliamentary secretary may not have known that because he is not a privy councillor and he would not be aware of what goes on in Privy Council, and of course, as everyone is aware, the minister is nowhere to be seen in the House. In fact, I do not even know what he looks like. I am suggesting that the hon. parliamentary secretary may have misled the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will have noted the request of the member for Charlottetown for a tabling of document, but again, I do not believe this is a point of order. It seems to be a matter of debate and interpretation as to what agreement, if any, there was. Whatever the terms of it or anything like that, it is clearly not a matter affecting the rules of the House.

The question really is, do the members agree on what the document constitutes? He can ask for the tabling. I am sure the request has been noted and the parliamentary secretary will respond to that request, I am sure in due course, whether yes or no, of course.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm through you to the parliamentary secretary that there was an offer, and certainly in question period last week a clarification for him, about what was understood, both by myself and hopefully by the government. Upon his request, I would be willing to table documents that I have if he is not able to.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will appreciate the offer of assistance from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre in this regard, but as the hon. member knows, ministers and parliamentary secretaries can table without consent and he might have trouble doing so. As I say, we will wait, and I am sure he can pass his offer along to the parliamentary secretary. I am sure it will be much appreciated. In the meantime, we will go to orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Pesticides

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North had the floor. She has six minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks. I therefore invite the hon. member for Vancouver Island North to resume her speech.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind hon. members that I was talking about pesticide spraying on a small island railway and had just finished speaking about the devastating financial impacts that this would have had on a small family farm if the spraying were to have gone ahead. However, the communities along this small rail line got busy. Letters were written to ministers and town councils. Rallies and forums were held. A lot of work was done on the part of a lot of committed people to put a halt to the spraying, but I fear we have not seen the last of this issue.

If there were a ban on pesticides, perhaps our fears would be alleviated and the many people who live in communities along the tracks would literally breathe easier. We know that the use of chemicals and fertilizers on lawns is dangerous. In fact, the directions say not to use them where there are pets and small children in the area, but who is more likely to use public parks and school grounds than small children?

Another group in my riding, the Valley Green coalition, led by Gaylene Rehwald and Kelly McLeod, made presentations at many city councils, with their children, to stop the use of chemicals in public areas. They were successful. Many of those communities, including my hometown of Cumberland, B.C., have now drafted pesticide bylaws. It is active groups like this all across this country that are raising awareness about a serious health and environmental issue, and we should listen.

As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, this issue is first and foremost one of public health. Family doctors are beginning to see the real effects of these toxins. Rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia, nervous system damage, and early puberty are all high in areas that have a high use of pesticides. In fact, the rate of children having these problems in homes that use pesticides is higher than that of those who live right next door.

However, not using pesticides is simply not a solution if others around us continue to. The use of pesticides goes much beyond the concept of consumer choice. As for the argument that if we do not like it, we do not have to use it, it does not make sense in this case. By their nature, pesticides do not stay in one location. They can be carried by the wind or washed into our yards by rain, or they can be tracked into the home by someone simply walking on a lawn that has been treated. As long as one person on the street is using pesticides, the whole neighbourhood is susceptible to this second-hand pesticide exposure.

Just as one neighbour is not safe from another who applies these toxic chemicals on a lawn, communities that have banned the use of pesticides are not safe if a neighbouring community still lets these chemicals be used. Carried through the air and the water by animals and insects, these chemicals affect us all if they are in use. It is that simple. That is why we need a national ban on the use of chemicals for cosmetic purposes.

Again, this issue needs to be looked at as a serious health and environmental concern. Pesticides have been linked to diseases such as cancer, to skeletal abnormalities and neurological and immune system damage, and to reproductive effects such as sperm abnormalities and increased miscarriages.

With the strain on our health care system, we do not need to be adding to already overcrowded hospitals and wait lists with something that could have been prevented. That is what we are talking about here today. It is the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we can prevent one more case of cancer from developing in our children, if we can prevent one more person from suffering the effects of a weakened immune system, if we can prevent one more family member from suffering the heartbreak of abnormal birth, then not only have we saved our health system money, but we have given peace of mind to many families.

Let me close by adding again that this is a serious environmental issue as well as a health issue. As we learn more about the negative effects of something that was supposed to make our yards and gardens more beautiful, we find the exact opposite. Pesticides contaminate indoor air and surfaces anywhere from hours to years after application. They can accumulate in soil and they take years to break down.

Pesticides accumulate in the tissue of amphibians, fish, mammals and birds. This interferes with growth, reproduction and behaviour. It is also linked to the decline of certain species. Pesticides contaminate water and poison the food chain for animals and people.

I ask all hon. members to support this motion, this first step on the way to healthier communities and a healthier environment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I follow the debate, it appears there is some merit on both sides. In my experience, though, the motion, as it is worded, is very detailed. I have often found that when there is a list of things included, it must mean that something is left out. My concern is there are circumstances which have not been anticipated by this.

I note that point (d) states, “that should further exemptions be sought to this pesticide ban”, and I assume the ban is not an outright ban but rather a ban of use in a particular place, scientific and medical evidence must be given to justify it.

In the last section of the motion, it seems as if there is a shift away from the section banning the storage or use in a premises to a ban of a pesticide outright and that it requires the manufacturer to prove that this pesticide should be used. It sounds like a totally different subject to me. I hope the member can clarify it for the House.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have outlined in my remarks is that pesticides are dangerous and ought not to be used in any circumstances.

The motion was designed to be a first step in moving our communities away from using pesticides in public areas and places where animals and children play and live. We know some of the issues around pesticides. They take years to break down. They harm our immune systems, and birth defect issues go along with that. We know they harm people and also the environment.

Again, this is a first step. We cannot anticipate everything. We would like to do that, but we cannot see the future. However, we know from past experience that further continuation of the use of pesticides could have more harm on our environment and children.

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

Mr. Speaker, some questions were raised earlier in this debate by a member of the Liberal Party, which seemed to get some support from Conservative members. It was the suggestion that we were terribly irresponsible for daring to use the word cancer in the context of this debate vis-à-vis exposure to pesticides.

The member for Malpeque in fact specifically chastised me and others for daring to link the two. Conservative members seemed to cheer in their seats and support the notion that one should not dare suggest there could be anything so nasty as cancer that could flow from exposure to pesticides.

This is despite the fact that we know from certain studies, going back to the national coalition for alternatives to pesticides, which showed that 159 pesticide related deaths were reported between 1980 and 1985 in the United States. This is despite the fact that there were about 16 million U.S. citizens sensitive to pesticides, according to a 1990 study. Another American study indicated that children of parents who used garden pesticides had a seven times higher risk of developing childhood leukemia.

Is it wrong for us to suggest that there is the possibility of cancer and other serious illnesses caused by exposure to pesticides?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that someone in this place at this time in this decade would think it is not appropriate to mention the word cancer and link it to pesticide use. As she mentioned in her remarks, many studies have been done and have linked cancer to pesticide use. It is not unheard of and it is not an unknown fact.

People in communities across the country are advocating for their local community town councils to ban the use of pesticides on public green spaces and property so their children will not be at risk.

Do not just take my word for it, either. I have a study by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. It also points to linking pesticide use to brain cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer among others and also leukemia.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the NDP motion put forward by the member for Toronto--Danforth with respect to pesticide use in Canada.

This debate reminds me of some of the previous work I did in Parliament in 2002. I tabled a motion on environmental contaminants, their affect on human health and how they broke down the immune system, caused respiratory diseases and a high rate of cancers. My area of Windsor, Ontario has been subjected to a series of higher health risks related to toxins in the environment. Part of that is from the use of pesticides.

When I put that motion forward, it was supported by the Progressive Conservative Party of the day. An amendment was supported by the Bloc. The amendment was passed in the House with some Alliance support and some Liberal support. When the main motion went to a vote, individuals from the Liberal Party abandoned it and it was subsequently defeated. My motion would have created an action response to help areas like the Sydney tar ponds and Windsor. Windsor has a high degree of thyroid cancer and other types of illnesses caused by toxins.

The argument was twofold. It was not just in the capacity of the affects on individuals and their sense of well-being. The OECD provided some economic data showing a significant GDP loss of 2% to 6% because of contaminants in our environment. Some of these contaminants are pesticides. There is a direct correlation to our productivity and our ability to compete and be successful in the world because people are sick for no reason.

Today's motion relates to the banning of some pesticides for cosmetic reasons, isolating other issues that are sensitive to farming and water treatment. Banning the use of pesticides for cosmetic reasons has been resoundingly supported across the country by many municipalities. It is important to note that the motion looks at that as a first step, as a precautionary principle. We all know that taking precautions is important.

We talk about our health care system and the amount of money that continually goes into it. We talk about how we can improve things, how we can keep up with the demands, the cost of drugs, the long wait times, the shortage of doctors and nurses. However, we do not address the issues we can control, and one of those issues is wellness. Pesticide use is part of that wellness, and we can deal with that.

This is why I am proud to support the motion. It is important to note that by prevention, we can save money, we can have healthier lifestyles and we can be more productive as a society. For all these reasons, I support the motion. This is a healthy first step forward.

We have heard some arguments about this not being based on science. The reality is many doctors and medical journals support banning pesticides. Organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society support it. They understand the important precautionary element.

Some of the arguments I have heard today are some of the same arguments I heard about people who smoked. Some said that smoking only affected the individual and not the people around them. We know this to be a fallacy. Society has undergone a significant transformation, not only here in Ontario but across the country and around the world. People have begun to realize that individuals in the immediate vicinity of a smoker suffer health consequences too because they are breathing in second-hand smoke. There were lots of arguments then about this not being based on sound scientific information. We know that is not the case. That is why we have seen a significant change.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the outstanding work of the member for Winnipeg Centre who tabled private member's legislation, Bill C-225, which is an act to amend the Pest Control Products Act regarding the prohibition of use of chemical pesticides for non-essential purposes. This is where a lot of the essence of this motion comes from. It contains a series of whereas clauses, but it talks about limiting the use of pesticides on our home lawns, in the ornamental care of flowers and different types of plants and vegetation, and at schools and other public buildings where animals and people tend to use the grassy areas. As well it makes sure that issues around weed control are done in a different way. I am proud to say that I come from a municipality that is taking up this challenge.

Not only has the member for Winnipeg Centre tabled Bill C-225, but it is interesting to note that he has championed other causes relating to public safety.

At one time asbestos was considered safe to use, but we now know from the medical evidence that its effect is very toxic and it causes significant problems to individuals. Hence, asbestos has been banned in many regions. As well, there is a limitation and control of its use that we did not have in the past.

The member for Winnipeg Centre also identified trans fats as a public policy issue that needed to be debated. Trans fats were being used far too often in our food rather than alternatives.

It is important to note that in today's NDP motion we are talking about moving toward prevention and alternatives as opposed to the outright practice in the spring of putting pesticides on the weeds. These products are poisons. They are meant to kill living organisms, whether they be insects or plants. They are meant to kill and subsequently they get into our water table and affect us as individuals and collectively as a society.

The member has been a champion in the cause against Zonolite. Zonolite is another problem. Our soldiers who serve us so well have been living in accommodations provided by the government, which contain Zonolite, an insulation product that has human health concerns and causes illness.

Many times when we are looking at a significant change in public policy in the use of different types of substances, there is a push back in society saying that we have to prove outright the causality of everything prior to banning something or at least to mitigate some of the connection. This issue is very difficult to deal with.

The April 2006 issue of the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health has a section on health assessment with regard to pesticides. It assesses human health risks chiefly on the basis of animal toxicity studies and human exposure estimates. Many of these studies are proprietary and not peer reviewed. When pesticides are introduced into our system here in Canada they are not necessarily peer reviewed and they do not have the necessary scrutiny.

The onus should be on the companies that want to introduce the product to ensure the safety well and beyond because we know that the causality is there.

The journal goes on to describe safety factors. It notes that because there are so many pesticides and different toxins and different types of chemicals in our current system and in our environment, it is hard to isolate the exact culprit. What we do know is that we have a causality on these types of pesticides relating to cancer, skeletal anomalies, immune system damage, neurological damage, reproductive effects. They all have links, which is important to note.

In wrapping up, we need to change, and this is part of the ongoing public policy debate in Canada. There is prolific use of pesticides in our culture. I pay tribute to the municipalities and individuals who have been fighting across this country to make sure that our practices are better. Prevention is the best thing to save us money, to save our health and to be a more progressive society so we can prevent risk for our citizens.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's input in the debate is certainly very interesting.

My question for the member has to do with jurisdictional responsibility. Certainly the pesticides act does follow on this, but in the decision in Spraytech v. Hudson in 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the town of Hudson, Quebec had the right, given under provincial law, to regulate where pesticides could be used.

I am wondering whether in developing the motion, consideration was given to jurisdictional exemptions, where it has been determined that, for instance, municipalities can deal with pesticide use on one's own personal property for gardening purposes, et cetera. The jurisdictional issue is what I am concerned about. Perhaps the member could explain what consideration was given in that regard in developing this motion.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my experience is that the municipality I come from and other municipalities have been requesting leadership from the federal government on this file.

The reality is that at the municipal level, there are individuals of all political stripes who feel they have been put on the spot about this issue. They have had to deal with it at the local level and they believe there should be more leadership from the federal jurisdiction that would actually help to support the case they have advanced which is the banning of pesticides.

It is important to note that jurisdictional issues are very sensitive. My experience to date has been that municipalities are looking for leadership from the federal government on this and other issues with regard to human health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Windsor has been able to put on the record some of the reasons that this motion is so important. He no doubt has heard enough of the debate to know that there are a significant number of Conservatives, if not all of them, and from the looks of it a significant number of Liberals, who are likely going to oppose this motion.

As we have seen so many times this past month or so, the Conservatives are beginning to look an awful lot like Liberals. They feign concern and compassion and yet when something requires them to put their money where their mouths are and show action, they seem to back off and ignore human health concerns.

My colleague has worked on this file for a number of years, as I have since 2002. Has anything actually changed to suggest that there is no linkage between exposure to pesticides, especially in the concentrated amounts that are used on lawns for cosmetic purposes, and serious health problems, such as cancer, malignant lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other serious issues at least as the literature identifies it?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see what is potentially happening here. The government could take a bold step forward. The government has talked. One of the positive things about the budget was a discussion about a cancer strategy, which is interesting because the Canadian Cancer Society supports this motion and ban. It is very important that the government have public policy right now which could enhance and support this position. It is sad to see the government moving away from that.

I come from Windsor and Essex County and we have significant problems with the environment. It makes me ill to think of the things that we could be doing to prevent illness but are not. I mentioned the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. Children play on lawns and on equipment and often eat food from hand to mouth and ingest these chemicals. They are 10 times more likely to be affected by pesticides. This is something that we can move on and be preventive. I do not understand why the Conservatives are acting like Liberals.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion of the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth.

One thing that struck me when I read this motion was that while the House may want to express an opinion on this, the proposal would likely have the federal government trespassing in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Let me take a moment to provide this insight for the House.

Section 92.13 of the Constitution says that provinces have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within their boundaries. It seems to me that many of the actions anticipated here are covered. Under section 92.8, the provinces have jurisdiction over municipal institutions and some municipalities have chosen to act in this area.

Constitutional issues aside, this motion appears to ignore the efforts that are made in Canada to ensure that the pesticide products legally in use in Canada are those that are safe to use according to the best possible scientific evidence. It also ignores the state of the law on pesticides or pest control products, and it ignores the efforts being made to ensure that risks to human health and to the environment are minimized when those products are used according to directions.

Without question, the regulatory environment in which the Government of Canada in general and the health portfolio in particular are functioning is a challenging one. There is the sheer scope of the enterprise. In all, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency are responsible for 14 regulatory programs, often working in collaboration with partners in the provinces and territories and other stakeholders.

The regulatory responsibilities dealt with in this portfolio touch the lives of Canadians in many ways, including food, drugs, medical devices, natural health products, hazardous materials, consumer products, assisted human reproduction, and of course our topic today, pesticides. In short, the health portfolio and the department and agencies therein engage in a complicated juggling act, but the fact is that they work together to protect and promote the health of Canadians and to offer timely access to safe and effective therapies and products.

In speaking to the motion brought forth today, I want to comment on the Pest Control Products Act, legislation for which the hon. Minister of Health is responsible to Parliament. I also want to describe the work of Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, which is the regulatory body overseeing pesticides in this country. In particular, I want to comment on new pesticide legislation that our government looks forward to seeing in force soon.

Let me underline a few key points about pesticides and their regulation in Canada.

The most important point is this. The regulation and overseeing of pesticides by Health Canada under Canadian law is exacting. It is driven by the best and newest scientific evidence available and it is aimed squarely at this goal: to ensure that the only pesticides that are registered or permitted for use in this country are products that pose no unacceptable risks to health or to the environment of Canadians.

There can be risks associated with the use of pesticides. For this reason, pesticides are among the most rigorously tested and regulated substances in the world. What does that mean in practice? It means that any company that wants to introduce a pesticide into the Canadian market has to seek and obtain the approval of Health Canada, and any such company must do so on the basis of scientific evidence that shows that health and environmental risks are within acceptable limits.

Several of my colleagues have already commented on the excellent work and the rigorous processes of Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in detail, but let me say this much. The process of determining whether to register a pesticide for sale and use in Canada is guided by the best science possible.

The analysis of the evidence the PMRA scientists conduct is a careful one. The work of that agency is seen as among the most stringent in the world and work that regulatory partners in other countries treat with respect.

Let me offer one example of how stringent that analysis is. The scientific testing required prior to registration has to address the potential impacts of pesticide on Canadians of all ages, from our youngest to our oldest. There is no one size fits all approach to evaluating products as important as these.

More than that, the PMRA continually updates its pesticide assessment methods to draw on the latest and best evidence to meet our goal of ensuring the utmost safety for Canadians and Canada's environment. As part of this, the PMRA conducts special reviews or re-evaluations of existing registered products.

Those reviews and re-evaluations enable the PMRA scientists to evaluate new safety issues, bring assessments of old products up to modern safety standards and amend the registration status of a product when the evidence shows that is necessary.

All this is taking place under an act that dates back to 1969. We soon expect to bring into force the new Pest Control Products Act, along with the many regulations and procedures that have had to be consulted on and developed to support the new legislation.

The new act is the result of substantial efforts over many year to reflect the kind of pesticide regulatory system that Canadians expect and deserve, one that earns their confidence.

Let me remind the House about the act. The new Pest Control Products Act does not change the fundamental way in which pesticides are regulated in Canada, which I described a few moments ago. However the new act achieves three goals.

First, it strengthens the health and environmental protection provided under existing law. For example, a number of definitions have been included for important terms, such as “health risk”, “environmental risk” and “value”. The term “environment” is defined in the same way as it is in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The new act includes an interpretation of the term “acceptable risk”. It states that the health and environmental risk of a pest control product are acceptable if there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result when the product is used as directed.

Current PMRA risk assessment and risk management practices are consistent with this definition. this enshrines that approach in law. Let me offer the House an example.

A minute or two ago I mentioned that Health Canada evaluates products for their impacts on people of all ages and the new legislation requires that. However it also requires that an additional margin of safety must be applied to protect infants and children from risks posed by pesticide residues in food and when pesticides are used in and around homes and schools.

The second accomplishment of the new act is to make the registration for pesticides more transparent. Canadians want to know about the substances being used in their environment. The new act introduces broad access to information provisions. Essentially, with two exceptions, all information related to a product and its registration will now be publicly available once the law is fully in force. The first exception is confidential test data that is normally scientific information. Now will that be hidden from view? No.

Even that confidential test data will be available for public examination in a reading room after a pesticide is registered. In fact, only confidential business information that meets a very precise and narrow definition, such as financial information, manufacturing processes and ingredients in a product that are not of health or environmental concern, will remain confidential.

On the other hand, the identity and concentration of ingredients or formulants that are of health or environmental concern will be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets and through the public registry.

The openness of the new act is shown in other ways as well. The new act will require public consultation before a major registration decision is made final. As a part of this, Canadians and all interested parties, including other levels of government, will be able to see summaries of the evaluation of pesticide risks and values, along with the proposed decision and rationale.

Under the new act, any member of the public can file a notice of objection to a major registration decision. The new legislation brings a much greater level of accountability than the previous legislation.

The importance of this kind of accountability and transparency transcends the issue of pesticide regulation. Our government takes accountability very seriously and made it one of its highest priorities. Canadians have a desire and the right to see how the health regulatory process works and to know how the government is working for them.

The new act delivers a third achievement, which is to strengthen the control on pesticides after they have been registered. In particular, the new act strengthens the existing provisions for re-evaluations or special reviews of pest control products.

I want to point out one aspect of these new provisions that is relevant to this debate. I know we have heard and will hear about the precautionary principle in connection with the use of pesticides. The new act incorporates that principle.

If there is reason to believe that a registered pesticide is posing a threat of serious or irreversible damage, the Minister of Health can implement cost effective measures to prevent adverse health impacts or environmental degradation. That would be true even if the evidence falls short of full scientific certainty at the time.

Let me mention one more aspect of the new act. It requires the reporting of new information that indicates the health or environmental risks or the value of a registered pesticide may no longer be acceptable. That could be evidence of adverse impacts to human or environmental health. It could be new scientific evidence.

In all these and other ways, the new legislation raises the bar in terms of accountability and transparency, all grounded in the best science possible.

I want to make an important remark about the new act that I believe is no less important. The new act does not see products such as pesticides as the be all and end all of dealing with pests. In fact, the new act encourages sustainable pest management and will help us improve access to pesticides with even lower risks, to meet the demand that is clearly growing among many Canadians.

It recognizes that wise pesticide use includes room for no pesticide use or the use of alternative methods. Quite simply, it enables people to make choices that are supported by science. The approach that we have in Canada to the regulation of pesticides is known and respected around the world.

Before I end my comments today, I want to make one last point about Canada's international efforts.

Canada participates actively with both NAFTA partners, the U.S. and Mexico, as well as members of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, to ensure that standards for pesticides incorporate the latest scientific knowledge.

Canada works jointly with its U.S. counterpart, the Environmental Protection Agency, to re-evaluate older pesticides to ensure they meet modern standards. The U.S. budget for re-evaluations is $58 million U.S., while Health Canada currently budgets $10 million. By using U.S. reviews and leveraging work completed by the U.S., Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency is able to re-evaluate older pesticides registered in Canada to ensure they meet modern safety standards in as short a time as possible.

I thank the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth for the motion presented today but the system that we have works well. It is a system that is constantly improving and, as new evidence comes to light, we will see a new system blossom under the new act. Above all, it is a system that is driven by firm commitment to act in ways that respect human health and the health of our environment. As we implement the new Pest Control Products Act, Canadians will see the commitment even more clearly.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech and on, what I would call, his total acceptance of the new Pest Control Products Act. I realize he was not with us at the time the bill went through the House and the Standing Committee on Health but I was.

It seems to me that the motion by the member for Toronto—Danforth is trying to extend to urban and suburban dwellings and the spaces around them the rules that the bill covers for farmers and rural dwellers.

My colleague might be interested to know that at the time this bill was created it was estimated that 80% of Canadians lived in urban settings and it was interesting that 80% of the witnesses who came to talk to us about the bill were from urban settings. They were literally begging us to ensure that the rules coming into force with this bill would apply in urban settings.

Many of them had been begging their municipal governments to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and were not getting anywhere. The municipal governments were saying that the province or the federal government should do it and we in turn were saying that it was a matter of local responsibility. It seems to me that we heard from every possible stakeholder and the serious message we heard was mainly from urban people who wanted the bill extended to their environment. It seems to me that the motion by the member for Toronto—Danforth does just that.

I would ask my colleague on the other side whether he feels these rules should be restricted to rural dwellers or whether urban dwellers such as those in Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia might also be entitled to the benefit of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that pesticides are among the most tested substances on the planet. Before a pesticide is approved, it needs to go through at least 200 scientific studies to ensure it will not be harmful to Canadians or the environment.

There always needs to be a balance and certainly the people of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia would appreciate knowing that the substances they may decide to use are safe. It is Health Canada's job to ensure they are safe. Like many other things, as long as people follow the directions, Health Canada has done due diligence to ensure there is a safety factor with pesticides.

The motion at the table today is not appropriate. However I am pleased with the act because it provides the flexibility to re-evaluate on a case by case basis.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the PMRA and the fact that it is in the business of overseeing how pesticides are tested, categorized and, therefore, how they are used. I am wondering if he would like to comment on the fact that, notwithstanding the bill that was passed in 2002, which we heard a bit about before, that it has not been promulgated. Therefore, the idea that citizens actually have access to the information is in fact not true. That is a huge problem and has been a problem for a while. It is a locked box for citizens.

I would like to get his comments on the fact that the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has come out in favour of this reverse onus. In other words, we are not saying to ban it forever. We are saying to stop using them and stop allowing them to be used until the industry can prove they are safe. We want to use reverse onus for the sake of the health of Canadians.

It is interesting that the PMRA has zero doctors on staff to oversee this. The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Cancer Society are clear that they are against the use and yet we do not have the resources from the PMRA nor do we have the promulgation of the legislation he is referring to where we would have access to the information. I would like his comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government looks forward to ensuring that the act is brought into full force.

I remind the member that in order to register a new pesticide, more than 200 scientific studies must be conducted to determine if it would cause any negative effects on people, animals, birds, insects, plants, as well as soil and water. These detailed studies must be conducted looking at the potential for a given pesticide to cause adverse health effects, such as cancer, birth defects or any other type of ailment, both in the long term and in the short term.

The member also needs to understand that Health Canada does not work alone during this process. The Health Canada works with other developed countries and other stakeholders, and leverages their research as well to ensure that the safety of Canadians is indeed protected.

I would emphasize that it is really important that people use pesticides as directed. Obviously, if they do not, it could be problematic. The directions must be clear and people must be made aware to follow the directions.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the motion the term “banned” is used in several places. In the background notes, the description is “banned for use”. I think it makes a difference. I am not sure whether or not the storage of a pesticide in one of these places would be a contravention of the motion. My question for the member is quite simply, how does he interpret “banned”? Is it banned in terms of use only or is it use and storage or presence within a dwelling?