Debates of May 16th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Pesticides

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not make myself clear enough when I said that it was not the ideology. The ideology of the NDP motion is that all pesticides should be banned. If an individual is dying because of the inappropriate use of pesticides or pesticides within their body, that is regrettable.

I make no mistake in my approach. I do not like pesticides. However, if we are speaking ideologically, then obviously the NDP would be supporting genetically modified foods because genetically modified foods are much safer and have much less herbicides than do conventionally grown products. If the NDP were not trapped in an ideology it would see that as absolutely not acceptable.

I talked about being trapped in an ideology of not seeing things clearly and not having a rational debate on the issue.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead for giving up some of his time for me and to compliment him on the excellent job he is doing as chair of the health committee.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the urban use of pesticides, sometimes referred to as the cosmetic use of pesticides. While I may not know a lot about cosmetics, I do have a few things to say about pesticides.

Pesticides are among the most rigorously tested and regulated substances in the world. In Canada, pesticides are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act. A pesticide itself must be approved or registered by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency before it is allowed to be sold or used in Canada.

Before a new pesticide is registered, more than 200 scientific studies must be conducted to determine if it could or will cause any negative effects on plants, people, animals, birds or insects, as well as on soil and water. For a product to be registered, the health risks, the environmental risks and the value of the product must all have been tested and approved. Pesticides are also re-evaluated after they have been on the market for some time in order to determine whether they meet current health and environmental standards.

Children continue to be one of the significant concerns when it comes to pesticide use. Health Canada considers the special exposure of children in their assessments each and every time. Children's differences in diet, food consumption, development, metabolism and behaviour are all factored into the risk assessment. Health Canada is also responsible for the assessment of the environmental impact of pesticides and considers detailed information on the fate of pesticides in the environment. Let us be clear. The assessment of the acceptability of risk is based on the most sensitive species tested.

Health Canada also reviews efficacy in order to determine the lowest effective rate, as well as whether the product works for the intended use. These reviews are important to ensure that exposure to pesticides is minimal.

Health Canada carries out the extensive reviews that I have described for all pesticides, whether they are used in urban areas, on farms or even in forests.

I will now turn to a couple of other uses for pesticides but to do so it will require a short discourse on our constitutional powers.

The federal Parliament's authority in regulating pesticides rests primarily on criminal law. This power can be used where pest control products may pose a risk of serious harm, namely, health, safety or the environment. An outright ban on the cosmetic uses of pesticides would presuppose that they all cause unacceptable risks, and this is simply not the case. Once it is determined scientifically that a pesticide can be used safely, which means its use would not pose unacceptable risks to public health or the environment, the criminal law would not support a refusal to register the product.

Legislative authority regarding the regulation of pest management at the provincial and territorial levels is based on the authority to enact legislation with respect to property and civil rights in matters of local concern. A system of provincial-territorial legislation focuses on the sale, the transportation, the storage and the use of registered pesticides.

This is important because it takes into account provincial and territorial conditions and concerns.

Provinces and municipalities, in some cases, do have the authority to make decisions to further restrict or prohibit pesticide use to reflect the conditions in their own jurisdiction. Some municipalities have passed bylaws to restrict pesticide use on municipal and private lands in accordance with local situations and local needs. My own riding of St. Catharines has exercised that authority on a couple of occasions.

The federal government does not have the authority to intervene on the matter. The federal, provincial and territorial governments have, for many years, recognized that effective pesticide regulation depends on cooperation.

The federal, provincial and territorial committee on pest management and pesticides brings together all of those jurisdictions to exchange information and expertise in order to provide advice and direction to governments on programs, policies and issues relating to pesticides. Regulators at all levels work toward the common goal, which is to help protect Canadians from risks posed by pesticides and ensure that pest control products do what they claim to do.

The new federal Pest Control Products Act which was given royal assent in December 2002 did give further strength to the regulation of pesticides. In fact, the new act was carefully designed to not change the balance of federal, provincial and territorial powers in regard to pest management regulation.

Since 2001 the two levels of government have been addressing public concerns about lawn care pesticides by implementing an action plan on urban use pesticides. This plan is comprised of three key elements.

The first is federal, provincial and territorial cooperation in implementing a healthy lawn strategy which helps Canadians reduce their reliance on lawn pesticides. Second, Health Canada is encouraging pesticide manufacturers to develop reduced risk products and for Health Canada to continue to register reduced risk pesticides as quickly as possible. Third, Health Canada is re-evaluating the major pesticides used for lawn care against the stringent new standards that have been adopted both in Canada and in the United States.

I sure hope to have a healthy lawn this year. I have been trying for a long time and I think this is the year. The healthy lawn strategy consists of seven components.

First is the ability to assess which types of products should be available to homeowners. This has been completed.

Second is the narrowing of the existing domestic category for pesticides and establishing a new category for products that require more controlled domestic use.

Third is improving product labelling so that the use of lawn care pest control products is compatible with enhanced risk reduction practices. This is also underway.

Fourth is developing training materials and programs to educate homeowners on healthy lawn practices which minimize the need for pesticides. This material has also been developed and it has been distributed widely.

Fifth is developing training materials and programs for vendors of domestic products. This is an ongoing activity in conjunction with the provinces.

Sixth is enhancing the training of lawn care and landscape service providers and green space managers. This has also been completed.

Seventh is establishing a healthy lawns web site. This has also been completed.

I am pleased to report that at the end of fiscal year 2005-06 more than 70% of the reduced risk pesticides registered or pending registration in the United States were also registered right here in Canada.

I would like to report on the re-evaluation of older pesticides. On September 27, 2000 Health Canada announced the priority re-evaluation of the eight most commonly available pesticides. This re-evaluation uses modern scientific standards to determine whether any restrictions need to be made to the conditions of registration of these chemicals.

The re-evaluations are complete for four of the lawn pesticides. Lawn use for all four has been phased out. Re-evaluations and reviews for two of the remaining three herbicides, including 2,4-D, have been published and the third is in publication.

Some work remains to be completed, as I noted. Health Canada will continue the re-evaluation process on priority lawn care pesticides and will continue to encourage registrants to submit more reduced risk pesticides for registration. Other areas of activity are the improvement of pesticide labels, revision of information materials, and additional new material suggested by provincial and territorial partners that are right on the web site.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to describe the actions that this government is taking with respect to pesticides used in the urban environment.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was with interest that I listened to the member talk about the work that is being done by Health Canada. I wonder if the member would comment on the Auditor General's report from 2003 which cited serious weaknesses in Health Canada's management of pesticides. The report highlights that new pesticides are sometimes not fully evaluated and older pesticides are not re-evaluated. Information on compliance is lacking and information on the use and impact of pesticides is inadequate.

In addition, in the 2004-05 budget, Health Canada received approximately $40 million from industry in terms of supporting its operating budget.

I wonder if the member could comment on why it is that we would have faith in a process that clearly the Auditor General has said is inadequate.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly when the Auditor General speaks, as she did again today, we all need to listen. It is interesting to note that this government is certainly going to act on the recommendations that were made by the Auditor General with respect to the gun registry.

Further to the member's point, I have enjoyed the time that I have served on the health committee. Our chair recently asked all of the health committee members what priorities they wanted to put forward to study on the health committee over the next number of weeks. Interestingly enough, pesticide use was not even put forward by the member for Surrey North who serves on the health committee for the NDP. The member never put forward that pesticides were an important issue that needed to be discussed at the health committee.

It was not important there, and I suggest that it may not be as important as the opposition motion seems to suggest.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for showing his faith in the regulatory process for pest control. I wonder if he could give us the list of stakeholders that the government has consulted to strengthen the process.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a motion put forward by one of the opposition parties so the question may be better asked of the folks who introduced this motion as to whom they may have or may not have consulted with in respect of the proposal that has been put forward today.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Earlier today a motion was adopted by the House relating to the debate on Afghanistan to be held tomorrow. This motion prescribes that once the debate has commenced, no amendments will be considered. One could call it a take it or leave it motion. I have some serious concerns in this regard, particularly when there are matters of life and death.

Therefore, I wish to move an amendment at this time, the effect of which is to require that at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate, the whole matter be referred to a special committee of foreign affairs and defence for public hearings and a report to this House on its findings and recommendations by October 15, 2006.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House has heard the hon. member's request. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Of course, I am rising in support of this motion. In the debate today we have heard differences of opinion, but I also think there is increasing support for banning the use of cosmetic pesticides. A number of cities across Canada have taken that very step.

I want to refer to various pieces of evidence in support of banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. I want to refer to some work that was done in this very House.

Back in May 2000 there was a report called “Pesticides, Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”. In the chair's preface to this report there were a couple of key comments that speak in support of examining the impact of pesticides on human health:

We looked at the current system of regulating pesticides in Canada and we asked ourselves whether it is possible for one agency, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), to perform two virtually conflicting tasks, namely that of approving chemical pesticides as requested by industry while at the same time regulating them in order to protect health. We asked ourselves whether it is possible to strike a balance between economic and health protection goals.

The chair went on to say:

We found, however, that pesticides are highly poisonous substances designed to kill living organisms and are thus potentially harmful to workers using them and...communities unknowingly exposed as well as to consumers. Therefore, we asked ourselves whether a regulatory system could be designed that would give clear and absolute precedence to human health.

That raised some pretty serious issues about whether or not pesticides were being appropriately regulated and whether or not human health was being protected. There is another report from a committee. A report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development stated:

The Committee firmly believes that a moratorium on pesticide use for esthetic purposes is necessary until science has proven that the pesticides involved do not constitute a health threat...in urban areas. Pesticide use should only be permitted in an emergency, such as a serious pest infestation which threatens the health of people and the environment.

Those were two pieces of work that were done right here in the House questioning the safety of the cosmetic use of pesticides and being concerned about the potential impact on human health.

Since we are talking about human health, I want to turn to the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, Volume 11, Number 4, April 2006. Earlier we heard some members speaking about scientific evidence and talking about proof. The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health report talks about this scientific proof. I want to quote from this journal because these people are specialists in their area. They see the impacts of pesticide use. Many of them are scientists. They look at the weight of evidence. In this particular case, they are talking about the scientific evidence:

The method for obtaining the highest quality of medical evidence, the randomized control trial, is unethical for pesticide testing. However, serious inadequacies in evidence stem from study and review procedures. Pesticide assessment falls short of current best practices by relying on industry-supplied proprietary studies that are not open to independent review and on reviews by interested parties rather than independent systematic reviews of primary literature.

Physicians are questioning whether or not the evidence that is being used to determine pesticide safety is actually adequate. That should lead us to some very serious concerns about the cosmetic use of pesticides in our country, pesticides that impact on human health, on children's health. This is a very important question for the House to consider.

I will now talk about municipalities, because we have heard about jurisdictional issues. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has talked about the fact that communities across the country are increasingly aware of the potential impact of synthetic pesticides on the health of children, pets and wildlife.

Research findings are linking pesticide toxicity to reproductive disorders, neurological conditions, cancers, and other medical conditions with particular concern about the effects of pesticide exposure on pregnant women and young children. They go on to talk about the variety of tools that are being provided, both through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other organizations to help Canadians break their dependence on cosmetic pesticides.

Even a body like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that can hardly be called a left wing think tank, is calling on Canadians to re-examine their pesticide use and is offering support to municipalities in that vein.

I will now switch to some more progressive thinkers and I am going to talk about David Suzuki and some other organizations. I think David Suzuki has a great deal of credibility among Canadians. He talks about pesticides and this can be found on the David Suzuki Foundation website. He states:

Pesticides are equal-opportunity killers. While they may eliminate garden pests, they also kill beneficial soil bacteria, insects, and even wildlife. Killing off these “good” bacteria, worms, and bugs unfortunately leads to a catch-22 situation since gardeners then have to add even more chemical fertilizers and pesticides to replace the jobs these helpful creatures used to do for free!

He goes on to say:

Chemical pesticides also inadvertently enter the storm water system and end up in streams, rivers and lakes, where they may kill or harm insects, frogs, and fish. In some cases, pesticides can contaminate our drinking water.

Drinking water is such an emotional issue in this country. We saw over the recent months a number of first nations communities all under boil water advisories. There are a number of boil water advisories in other communities and there are a variety of things that can contribute to the contamination of our water. Certainly one of them is the cosmetic use of pesticides.

I found an interesting study that came from the National Water-Quality Assessment program in the United States. Canadian water and United States water share a lot of things in common. We like to drink it, we like our fish to swim in it, and we want it clean and safe for our children, our pets and for everybody to be able to consume. The study that was conducted is quite frightening. It said:

The frequency of pesticide contamination, however, is greater than expected. At least one pesticide was found in almost every water and fish sample collected from streams and in about one-half of all wells sampled. Moreover, individual pesticides seldom were found alone — almost every water and fish sample from streams and about one-half of samples from wells with a detected pesticide contained two or more pesticides.

The study went on to say:

For aquatic life and wildlife, however, NAWQA results indicate a high potential for problems in many streams, particularly in urban areas, where concentrations of more than one pesticide often approached or exceeded established water-quality guidelines.

Not only is this affecting our water quality, it is also affecting the fish and other critters that live in those streams, and we eat the fish. In addition, the study stated that:

Important questions remain unanswered about potential risks of pesticide contamination to humans and the environment. Currently, standards and guidelines are available only for a limited number of individual pesticides, do not account for mixtures of pesticides or for pesticide breakdown products, and are based on tests that have assessed a limited range of potential health and ecological effects. Long-term exposure to low-level mixtures of pesticide compounds, punctuated with seasonal pulses of higher concentrations, is the most common pattern of exposure, but the effects of this pattern are not yet well understood.

The study also mentioned the fact that the accumulation is often not understood.

In closing, I want to emphasize the fact that pesticide concentration has been found in salmon and in other fish that we consume. The accumulation process has not been well understood. I think it is time for us to call on the precautionary principle to say that unless people can unequivocally demonstrate that it is safe for us to consume these products that have been contaminated by pesticides, we should call for the ban of cosmetic pesticides.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too share many of the concerns of the member opposite. I had this debate when I was on city council in Toronto. I was one of the people who was very supportive of banning pesticides. We do not yet know the full extent of the dangers of pesticides to our health, environment and drinking water, so we have to be extremely proactive.

Some of the initiatives in the past tried to educate people about the dangers, but we know very well that has not worked. I would certainly be supportive of a motion being put forward to limit pesticides or put some measures in place that would in fact ban the usage of pesticides in our country.

I am the vice-chair of the environment committee and right now it is looking at the CEPA legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which deals with toxic substances that enter the environment and have immediate and long term harmful effects on the environment or human health.

If somehow this motion does not carry in the House, would she be in favour of moving this to the committee or pushing this forward to see if we could put some of those elements into the CEPA legislation as we have a statutory mandate to review it this year?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am ever hopeful that members of the House will see the light of day and support this important motion before us. However, in the absence of that, I know that our environment critic from Skeena—Bulkley Valley will be working closely with other members of the environment committee to ensure that initiatives are brought forward to do things like protect our water quality. We will be working hard on that issue.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for doing an excellent job of outlining why the time has come. We may not yet have the absolute 100% scientific information we would like have, but clearly we are at the point now where it is time for us to act in the interests of Canadians, particularly children when we think of them playing in the yard and walking down the street passing lawns, et cetera.

Like myself, the member has served on her local city council. I can remember struggling with this back in the 1980s on Hamilton city council at a time when those who wanted the manicured lawns as the priority said we did not have near enough scientific evidence to step in and do this. They were going to stay with their lawns because they did not want to deal with upset constituents.

We are now almost 20 years down the road looking at it on a national level. I wonder if the member would expand a little on why she is so comfortable that we can do this on a national level, removing it from the municipal level, and why it is appropriate at this time, given her sensitivity having been a councillor and knowing the need for autonomy, but also recognizing when it is time for senior orders of government to step in.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his very good question and support. Coming from municipal backgrounds, we have always been conscious when senior levels of government start to impose their will. However, in this particular case the federal government has a very clear and well defined role on approving pesticides.

It is the government's responsibility to determine the safety of a product and it falls within its purview to do that. I would expect that the role for the federal government here is the precautionary principle that I talked about earlier, but it is also the role of the federal government to take some leadership around this matter, particularly because it impacts on water quality. That is another place the federal government has a role. We have an inadequate drinking water policy in this country and this is one step that is clearly linked with water. This is an area for the federal government to demonstrate some very clear leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, on behalf of Canada's environmental party, the NDP, to speak to this motion because that is the role that we have undertaken in this Parliament, as we did in the last Parliament. What we attempt to do as a party in the House, working in this corner of the four corners of the House, is to put forward environmental platforms and strong environmental interests, so that Canadians who are increasingly concerned about the environmental degradation that we see in this country have a party to look to. That is the role that we undertake. It is within that framework today that we are presenting this motion.

The motion calls for banning pesticides within dwelling houses, within range of schools, hospitals, offices or similar buildings. In other words, it is all about protecting the public. Although we do provide some grounds for exemptions, we do say very clearly that what we have to do is put the onus on manufacturers to show that their product is safe. This should not be a controversial subject. This is something that all members of the House in all four corners of the House should be embracing.

It moves to protect the public at a time when the public, Canadians from coast to coast to coast, are increasingly preoccupied by the skyrocketing rates of cancer.

We have heard from a number of other members today. Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with some of the presentations that I have heard. Some members have been talking about the constitutionality of issues of the environment, as if the Constitution should come before protection of Canadians and keeping Canadians in good health and with a good quality environment.

We have also heard some members speak about the fact that the government should not intervene, that somehow this should be just left alone. The time for that is well past. It is time that we take our responsibility as parliamentarians seriously. It is time that we move to ban these pesticides in areas that are clearly spelled out in the NDP motion.

I would like to take a moment to explain why this important aspect has to be raised and why the motion is important for the future of the Canadians watching us this evening, who have watched all day with considerable interest.

There is scientific proof. We know there is a link between pesticides and cancer. For example, the use of pesticides in landscaping around the house doubles the risk of neuroblastoma, a cancer that occurs in children. There is a link between pesticides and skeletal anomalies, damage to the immune system and neurological damage. Pesticides often contain neurotoxins, which have a negative impact on the development of the brain.

We know as well that there is a link between pesticides and reproduction—the higher incidence of miscarriages, birth defects and problems with conception and pregnancy. We know as well that pesticides have an impact on sterility.

If we look at the use of pesticides per capita in all of the countries of the world, Canada is, unfortunately, sixth, after Australia, Italy, France, Belgium and the United States. That should be a warning.

There are, in fact, many links, and measures have to be taken.

What is the situation, when about cancer right now across the country? We know that about six million Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer. About three million will die from cancer. This is over the next 30 years. I am not talking about a small impact. We are talking about six million Canadians who have been diagnosed with cancer and three million Canadians who will die from it over 30 years. This comes from the Canadian strategy for cancer control

We know that the direct cancer health care costs would be more than $176 billion. Effectively, we are talking about the devastation that happens when communities and families are impacted.

There have been some statements in the House today that somehow cancer is not the problem, that cancer rates have not risen. We know very well that childhood cancers have risen over 20% in 30 years. We have seen increasing levels of prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, thyroid, testicular cancers are all increasing. All of these cancers have links to environmental contaminants.

We are not talking about a small issue. We are talking about an issue that will have an impact on millions and millions of Canadians over the next few decades. That is why we have the responsibility to take action. We have the responsibility to intervene. That is why Canada's environmental party, the NDP, put forward this motion today. We are debating with all the vigour and logic of our argument to get members in all four corners of the House to do the right thing, which is to take action.

It is not the right thing to say that maybe we do not like this line. It is not the right thing to say that the government should not be there protecting people. It is not the right thing to take these kinds of attitudes. The right thing for us to do is to adopt the motion and to move forward to protect Canadians.

Wendy Mesley, a well known journalist in Canada, has exposed to a rather great extent the persistence of environmental contaminants in her own bloodstream. Having gone through a very difficult bout with cancer, she got herself tested for 60 toxic chemicals, contaminants in the body. As we know, they found 44 toxic chemicals within her body. If we tested other members of the House, if we tested Canadians across the country, we would probably find similar types of environmental contaminants such as pesticides, which in the end, because of the link between pesticides and cancer, could be a contributory factor to the millions of cancer deaths that we anticipate in the next few decades.

What were the toxic chemicals that were found in her blood? One was polychlorinated biphenyls, otherwise known as PCBs. We know that PCBs are no longer produced or used in North America. The major source of exposure to PCBs today is the redistribution of PCBs already present in soil and water. In other words, they are not produced or used in North American any more. They are still contaminating and they are still a contributory factor to cancer.

For those who stay, we should do nothing, that we should just ignore the three million anticipated Canadian deaths over the next 30 years, here is a very valid and strong argument against that attitude.

Organochlorine pesticides, otherwise known as DDT, we also found in Wendy Mesley's body. We know that these are no longer used in Canada. Those contaminants were found in her blood.

Just a side note on this. The PCBs and the organochlorine pesticides are classified under California's Proposition 65, as suspected carcinogenics. Here we have an example from the United States. I know some members of this House like to follow American examples. Here we have the Americans in California saying that these are carcinogenic substances. There is obviously a link. In other parts the world, places like California, lawmakers are starting to move forward and to make those changes.

Cadmium and nickel were also found in her bloodstream.

Perhaps the strongest argument I can bring to our motion today, which we are urging all members to adopt, is the Canadian Cancer Society's position on the use of pesticides. It has said that they are concerned about the use of potentially carcinogenic substances. It bases its concern on the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which states that substances used in pesticides are classified as known, probably or possible carcinogens. The Canadian Cancer Society calls for a ban on the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming, not just the evidence over the past few years, but the evidence that we have to consider as members of Parliament. I urge members in all four corners of this House to adopt the motion.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud the NDP brought forward this motion. I think it is very clear to all of us that the use of pesticides in our society have caused significant health effects.

I am also proud that the city of Burnaby, a community that the member for Burnaby--New Westminster and I share, has also taken some strong measures in this area. In fact, I think the city of Burnaby was one of the leaders on the whole issue of the use of pesticides and herbicides for cosmetic purposes within the community. Also, the Burnaby School Board has taught many workshops for homeowners and people in the community about how to successfully do cosmetic things on their lawns and gardens without using pesticides, things like using specialized tools, specialized plant selection and protecting beneficial insects in our gardens and on our lawns. It has also done this work in conjunction with the B.C. Landscape & Nursery Association.

There are options. The program called “Let It Grow, Naturally” has been a success in Burnaby.

Why has taken the federal government so long to act in this area, when the information is so plain and the solution is staring us right in the face?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is a very valid one. In the city of Burnaby, Mayor Derek Corrigan and both the Burnaby city council and the Burnaby school board have been leaders in the field municipally, showing that there is life after pesticides. Indeed, the kind of measures that he spelled out are very important. These are the kinds of effective measures taken locally by our city of Burnaby and they have made a big difference in the lives of citizens.

He mentioned Burnaby and some of the leaders. I want to mention the name of Mae Burrows, the executive director of the Labour Environmental Alliance Society. She is a Burnaby resident who lives in my riding. She has been fighting for warning labels about carcinogens on products and has been a real pioneer in the field as well. Burnaby, not only at the municipal level but also at the activist level, is a leader in this area of improving the quality of life for citizens, providing environmental protection and good quality of environment, which we all want to see, and moving to protect its citizens.

His question was why the federal government had not acted. I think it is very clear. We had the Liberal Party in power. Now we have the Conservative Party in power. However, effectively what we need is Canada's environmental party to continue to grow in its influence in the House so we can get legislation that will make such a difference in the lives of citizens.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, both my colleagues from Burnaby had very good interventions, capsulizing what we are trying to do today.

We have heard some speakers on the Liberal side, one who was a medical doctor in fact, deny the science. The member quoted from one study written by an industry representative who argued against banning 2,4,5-T, which is agent orange. She thought agent orange should in fact be available on the shelves, so that is a credibility issue.

Even if we cannot ever prove the causal link between one particular chemical and one particular illness because of the chemical soup we are exposed to, should the precautionary principle not then prevail, especially when it pertains to children, pregnant women and vulnerable people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for all the work he has done on behalf of Canada's environmental party in the NDP, pushing forward a plan of protection for the precautionary principle. He has been a real leader in this field since his election back in 1997 to ensure that Canadians are protected. This is all about protecting Canadians and giving them a better quality of life.

He mentioned some of the Liberal interventions. I have one of the transcripts from the debate earlier today. A Liberal member from British Columbia, I regret to say, said that 99% of pesticides were naturally occurring and that there was no problem at all. That is a bizarre intervention which shows where the Liberal Party is today. It is very similar to the Conservative Party. Neither party wants to act on behalf of Canadians. Neither party wants to bring forward legislation that will improve the quality of lives of Canadians, and that is shocking to me and very disappointing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate. It has been a very instructive and informative debate on the issue of pesticides and their impact on health.

One of the reasons I want to speak to this issue is that back in 1979 there was a train derailment in Mississauga. The train was carrying a number of chemicals, pesticides, chlorines and toluenes, all kinds of very dangerous goods. There was a lot of concern. The entire city was evacuated, some 250,000 people. I remember sleeping on someone's floor for three or four days while the problem was dealt with.

There was a firefighter who had received some serious lung damage as a consequence of this derailment. It was back at that time that I first realized the risk that firefighters are put in when they go out to do their duty.

Over the years we in this place have talked a lot about such things as that type of exposure and that the life expectancy of firefighters is about five years lower than the national average. As a consequence the House passed a motion that actually increased the accrual rate in the Canada pension plan to allow firefighters to earn a full Canada pension plan benefit based on a shortened career. Usually by age 50 many firefighters cannot meet the physical requirements.

The issue of chemicals and pesticides in our society is a matter of serious health importance. It affects us in many different ways.

I congratulate the NDP for bringing forward the motion and explaining to Canadians some of the facts and the figures about the health impacts of pesticide use in our everyday lives.

I was most concerned about the experience that the Pest Control Products Act and the agency have had in terms of going back and looking at pesticides which had previously been approved as safe for use. Now we find that amendments to legislation that were considered have been delayed in terms of their implementation to get the changes made to the act, because of the number of changed opinions on certain aspects of pesticides regulated by the Pest Control Products Act.

I have to make this very clear because it is important that members understand this. This is a supply day motion. It is a votable motion. It is binding on the government. Many members, including myself, have raised some small points of detail that maybe there are some unintended consequences. I have heard this in other members' speeches. I am concerned that the motion may fail because of a minor technicality or a small nuance that had not been detected.

I asked the mover of the motion whether he would consider a minor amendment. The minor amendment would basically be at the beginning where the motion says, “That, in the opinion of the House,” and it would state “that the government consider the advisability that”. It makes it that the issue is still to be considered but it does express clearly the opinion of the House. It would make all the difference in the world.

By the end of my speech I am hoping to seek a head nod that the NDP members would consider an amendment that they would have to approve to their motion, if they so wished. I think there are many members in this place who would like to vote for this motion because they understand that this does not hurt rural circumstances. There are enough exemptions.

For instance, even with regard to schools, hospitals and dwellings, there is an exemption that in a closed building, the chemicals that are regulated under the act could be used, as long as they were addressing an infestation or other need to destroy pests.

We are on the horns of a dilemma here, and I think members understand that. There is no member in this place who does not understand that the concoction of chemicals that we use in everyday life, which are probably under our kitchen sinks are much the same.

Before I became a member of Parliament I used to be the treasurer of the United Co-operatives of Ontario, an agricultural co-op. This co-op was into seeds and grains as well as chemicals and fertilizers. I visited every one of its 103 retail outlets across the province of Ontario. I knew it when I went into the area where the pesticides were stored, because I could smell them even though they were in unopened packages. There was something in the air.

This motion basically says that there are a lot of things that we do not see because the concentrations may not be high enough. We know from history that there are a lot of cases where even small doses over a continuous period of time can build up and the impact will not be realized until some threshold of concentration builds up in the lungs or somewhere else in the body.

In this place we have talked a lot about environmental impacts. We have talked a lot about things like the impact of particulate matter even with regard to climate change and greenhouse gases. Many of the processes that create greenhouse gases also create particulate matter, which means that is a threat to the health of Canadians as well. Greenhouse gas reductions and climate change priorities are important because they are health issues as well.

Today's debate is extremely important, but the motion has some problems. If the motion were an act of Parliament, if we just numbered the clauses and gave it the details, I am pretty sure the words in the motion would not pass the sniff test. They would not pass through a committee. They would have to be amended substantially. Parliament is faced with voting on this motion. There is no chance to amend it. There is no chance to make it better. It is just a matter of voting on it and it becomes law because the government will be bound to enforce it. That is unfortunate because the motion's intent is good.

I am going to support the motion regardless. That is why I am speaking here. I am going to support it on the basis of its intent, but I certainly want to raise the issue about the form. Most members who spoke to this motion talked about it being difficult to read and maybe a little too detailed. It raised the spectre that there may be unintended consequences.

I also raised the issue earlier about jurisdictional responsibilities. It is not inconsequential to legislation. Other jurisdictions have jurisdiction over the use of pesticides in their own municipalities and regions. There are some points that could be discussed.

I hope Canadians appreciate that the most important thing is that Parliament today raised yet again an important issue with regard to the health and well-being of Canadians, but not in a draconian fashion dealing with the economic viability of agriculture in Canada, nor would it interfere with business or industry in the normal case. The motion cautions all Canadians that when they use pesticides on their properties, in their homes and in and around places the public occupies, remnants linger and there are potential problems over the longer term. It is an important caveat for all of us to know.

I want to support this motion. I would like to move an amendment that after the word “that” the words “in the opinion of the House” be deleted and that they be replaced with the words “the government consider the advisability that”. It would now read “That the government consider the advisability that beginning on April 22”, et cetera. I would ask the consent of the mover to move this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 85, an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber to give his or her consent, in this case his consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.