John Herron

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my compliments to the member for Windsor West on his remarks on this legislation. Although he was not a member of the Standing Committee on Health, it is obvious that he has a fair amount of institutional knowledge on the file. He raised a lot of the salient points that should be considered in the bill.

I had the privilege but also the arduous task of sitting on the environment committee in 1999 when we undertook a one year review of the pesticide management regime. An all party report was tabled. The committee heard from numerous stakeholders, not just environmentalists but health care professionals as well as the participants of the Pest Management Advisory Council itself.

There were aspects we agreed to in that review of the legislation. To summarize, clearly when we are evaluating toxicity for pesticides or any particular toxin, there has to be a margin of safety under consideration that would take into account the health of the most vulnerable of our population, they being pregnant women, the elderly and children.

Mr. Speaker, you were a very active participant in the election campaign in November 2000. It is always good and healthy for us to see what was in the platforms of our competitors. There were three particular planks in the Progressive Conservative platform in November 2000.

Essentially the platform outlined that a Progressive Conservative government would table new pesticide legislation that would modernize the existing 30 year old legislation. We give kudos to the Government of Canada for adopting another Progressive Conservative initiative, very similar to what was done with respect to free trade, deregulation, tax reform, privatization and winning the war on inflation. We know the Liberals are not capable of coming up with their own ideas so the taking of our ideas is more than welcome.

I applaud the Minister of Health for tabling new legislation in the early weeks of her taking over that file. We said at that time that exposure levels and toxicity of pesticides would be evaluated with consideration to the effects on our most vulnerable populations.

We also want to highlight the second aspect, which is a cornerstone of what the all party committee flagged in its report of June 1999. There has to be public disclosure of what the formulants are, those ingredients other than the active ingredients of pesticides.

Numerous individuals who are concerned about pesticides in the environment recognize that quite often the formulants are actually more hazardous to human health than perhaps the active ingredient itself. That is why there has to be full and public disclosure.

We are also advocate trying to have a public awareness campaign, almost to the degree there is now in educating Canadians about the health implications of cigarette smoking. We need to show that there is a cumulative effect of adding more pesticides into our environment. We need to foster a culture of reduced reliance on pesticides and have a more integrated pest management approach.

Speaking directly to the motions, I am quite concerned about Motion No. 1 moved by the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada. It has essentially gutted a Progressive Conservative amendment that was supported almost unanimously by both sides of the House at the committee stage.

They are the democratically elected individuals of our country who have said in good faith that this makes sense. They are educated parliamentarians who have listened to witnesses and understood that there has to be disclosure of substances that are in the pesticides themselves. This reflects on the issue of formulants.

The Tory amendment would have specified that confidential business information should be the only information legitimately withheld from the public. All other information regarding health effects, environmental impacts and efficacy are defined as in the public interest. Essentially we are saying that the amendment specified exactly what information is to be kept confidential. The public has the right to be informed of the rest. All members of the committee supported that amendment.

I compliment the member for Winnipeg North Centre who serves as the health critic for the NDP, the Canadian Alliance which stepped up to the plate on this amendment and the learned Liberal members, but here we are now pulling it back. We are pulling back an amendment that Liberal members supported, including the government representative for the ministry. We find that to be quite sad.

Before us are three motions that essentially speak to the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is an international concept which says that the preponderance of evidence, the weight of evidence shows that there could be a detrimental effect to the environment or to human health. When factoring in the application of a particular substance, a very strong precautionary approach should be taken into account.

This is what we had in 1987 when we adopted a protocol on ozone depleting gasses done by the Progressive Conservative government led by the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. It was also the same precautionary principle that was adopted by the United Nations where the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney played an immense role in the 1992 Rio earth summit in that regard. It is a concept that by definition is used in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We see it referenced in section 20.2 of the proposed act.

We are calling on the Government of Canada to utilize it when it makes decisions. Whether it is the re-evaluation of an existing pesticide or the proposed registration or application of a new pesticide, we need to ensure that we take a very strong precautionary approach. That is the minimum that we owe Canadians.

It provides a clear transparency about how the Pest Management Review Agency utilizes the precautionary principle. It told us that the precautionary principle is utilized across the board in its decision making process. The witnesses had said that they asked for it. If it actually uses the precautionary approach, why not enshrine it in the act? Why not make it a duty? Why not make the Government of Canada accountable by having a clear standard? It makes a whole lot of sense.

I would also like to speak in support of Motion No. 5 moved by the New Democrats. They point out that we need a national pesticide use and sales database and a national pesticide use survey. Canada is the only OECD country without a national pesticide sales database. The only other major industrialized country that does not have a database on the use of pesticides is the Czech Republic, which was mentioned by the auditor general just a few years ago. Motion No. 6 moved by the New Democrats speaks to the same issue.

The final motion we would want to support but we would have preferred at least a five year review as opposed to a seven year review is that moved by the Liberal government to ensure that we do not have a 30 year old act again.

Kudos to the government for revising an act that is 30 years old. It is sad that it is not pioneering. We are discussing a mediocre bill which deserves mediocre support.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

He was.

[Dairy Industry, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1999 Canada adopted the Codex agreement and international standards for the use of dairy terms. If a product is intended to substitute milk or milk products, dairy terms such as butter and cream must not be used. While soy beverages exist, soy milk does not.

Canadian dairy farmers invest over $75 million each and every year to promote their products. Yet many companies mislead consumers by co-opting these terms in their labelling where there is no dairy content in the first place. Foods like buttery flavour popcorn and strawberry and cream cereals, despite their labels, do not actually contain any dairy products and mislead consumers.

Having put on a good show at the international level, the government is now creaming Canadian dairy farmers by refusing to apply these standards at home. When will the government actually enforce these dairy term standards?

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to speak for only a few moments to the initiative brought forth by the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

I want to state categorically for the record that both the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and I as a private member for the riding of Fundy--Royal are in wholehearted support of Bill C-415. The bill would amend subsection 318(4) of the criminal code and replace it with the following:

In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

To illustrate the issue I will being members back to Fredericton, New Brunswick on the evening of November 7, 1999. A young man named Robert Peterson was walking home on Regent Street after a night out with his friends. His only crime that evening was walking home. He was heinously attacked in a brutal and severe fashion. As a result Robert Peterson, a law student at the University of New Brunswick, ended up with his eyes blackened. He required stitches on both sides of his face. The motivation for the crime was clearly established as a gay bashing. He was attacked merely because of his sexual orientation.

Moments ago a reference was made to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in terms of how it distinguishes discrimination if not racism and does not include sexual orientation in its list. The declaration was written by a man named John Peters Humphrey who came from my riding of Fundy--Royal.

Things change in society. We learn to add where appropriate. Also in my riding of Fundy--Royal is Gordon Fairweather who was Canada's first human rights commissioner and the hon. member for Fundy--Royal from 1962-78. He believes sexual orientation must be added to the code.

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas said he wanted to dedicate his initiative to the memory of Aaron Webster. I want to send a signal on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that the heinous beating of Robert Peterson will not be forgotten. In his name we support the initiative of the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas. I thank him for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs said that, based on a report seven years ago, he made changes in first nations water quality, yet the Walkerton report said that it was unacceptable and disturbing that 83 reserves across Canada currently had contaminated water systems. The member for Toronto—Danforth, who held a water roundtable on a reserve, echoed the recommendations of the roundtable of the Conservative Party that the federal government must act to protect the drinking water for first nations.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the government not acting to ensure that all Canadians, particularly on reserves where they have exclusive jurisdiction, have access to safe drinking water?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the newly minted Leader of the Opposition on a very solid speech. He touched on some aspects that I think do hold true. When we have solid public policy, we propose things like an acid rain protocol. When we have solid public policy, we propose that we should enter the gulf war under the auspices of the UN as opposed to a NATO perspective. That is what Canada proposed to the Americans. He also highlighted the free trade agreement. In 1988 we had about $90 billion in trade with the Americans. Now we trade well in excess of $400 billion each and every year.

Given that solid footing that we had with the Americans, I have one simple question. Would we at least concede that some of the vitriolic and visceral language utilized by members on that side against the Mulroney administration during the early part of the 1990s might have been just a little over the top and that there were some significant gains made for the country under the Brian Mulroney administration?

[National Drinking Water Standards, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second report into the inquiry about Walkerton is set to be released. Like the first inquiry report, it will be a damning indictment of the status quo on drinking water safety in Canada and will outline how the public was not informed about harmful substances in their drinking water. We had hoped that the Walkerton tragedy would have served as a wake-up call to the federal government.

Not only have they refused to act, but the Liberals have broken a promise they made on May 8 of last year when they supported the amendment of Progressive Conservative Party to take immediate action in conjunction with the provinces and territories to ensure enforceable national drinking water standards and to protect the public's right to know.

The reality is that the problems that converged in Walkerton can now be found in scores of Canadian communities. That is why earlier this month the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, in the name of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, tabled a safe water act. We did the government's homework for it, and now it has no excuse not to take the urgent action it promised and provide this nation with national enforceable drinking water standards.

[Tax Credit, May 21st, 2002]

It punishes performance.

[The Environment, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has come out publicly and said that Ottawa can and may well ratify Kyoto without provincial agreement.

This reminds me of when the federal government showed contempt for the provinces in 1997 when it walked away from a provincial consensus on Kyoto. Why has the government waited five whole years to involve the provinces and territories who are critical partners in an effective climate change strategy?

The government must provide Canadians with a detailed impact analysis done sector by sector, province by province with regulations on implementation. Canadians must know what behavioural expectations the national government has for them. This is what the government should have been doing and still must do.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always advocated a no regret strategy: to have massive tax incentives for renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency investments, to promote conservation, and to promote Canadian agriculture by fostering the use of ethanol and other blended fuels.

Whether we are part of Kyoto or not, Canada must engage the U.S. on a continental strategy. Given the fact that Canada has failed to do its homework, it may be more prudent and is more prudent to develop a North American response to climate change than to blindly ratify an accord we are not ready for.

[Safe Drinking Water, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I tabled a bill in the House on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and our leader the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, an act to ensure safe drinking water throughout Canada.

We are proposing a way to keep a promise made in the House to Canadians one year ago on May 8, 2001 when the Liberals along with most parliamentarians in the House supported a motion we put forward which called upon the government to take immediate action working with the provinces and territories to turn existing guidelines and suggestions into national enforceable standards in the form of a safe water act.

This is yet another broken promise by the Liberal government. It is appalling that the government refuses to act to ensure the right of every Canadian, no matter where they live, to know that the drinking water they consume is safe. Walkerton should have served as a wake up call to the government.

Now that we have done the government's homework for it and introduced a bill which would work to ensure that such a tragedy did not happen again, we ask the Government of Canada to support our bill or to introduce their own safe water act to ensure that we have national standards for drinking water.