Catherine Bell

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

First I would like to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for bringing this important motion before the House. As he said in his remarks earlier today, this is one concrete step “the federal government can take to protect all Canadians from chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects” and other devastating illnesses.

This is a serious issue that affects our environment, and a serious issue that affects our health, and it must be dealt with on a national level. Citizens across this country have been speaking out about the cosmetic use of pesticides in their communities. Now it is time for the federal government not only to listen but to act.

The cosmetic use of pesticides is something whose time is over. We should not be pouring harsh chemicals on our lawns and gardens to kill a weed or a bug. These chemicals were designed to kill and that is just what they do. They do not stop at only weeds and bugs. Medical studies have shown that exposure to all commonly used pesticides adversely affects health. In fact, there is no class of pesticide free of cancer-causing potential. That alone should warn us away from using them, but it does not. We are given the illusion that some chemicals are safer than others, but again, let us consider this: these chemicals were designed to kill something.

There are much better ways of making our lawns and gardens greener and healthier at the same time. We should be encouraging composting and natural native plantings in public spaces and in our yards across this country. This is something that is already happening in many communities that have realized the negative environmental and health implications of pesticide use.

Citizens across this country from coast to coast to coast have been pushing for bans on pesticides. In the southern part of my riding, there is a small rail corridor known as the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. It runs along the east side of Vancouver Island from Victoria to Courtenay. Along the way it passes many small and large communities, numerous rivers and streams, small vegetable and dairy farms, forests, several schools, and countless rural backyards.

As everyone knows, the west coast of B.C. is somewhat of a rainforest and vegetation grows quite quickly there, but last year a decision was made to control the vegetation along the rail line with a chemical known as 2,4-D. Many of us in the communities along the tracks were shocked. This was something that was done back in the 1950s, we thought, and surely this could not be happening in 2005, when we know the dangers of such chemicals.

How could this even be considered in such an environmentally sensitive area? Salmon-bearing streams along the route are already in jeopardy due to a host of things such as lack of enhancement, bad logging practices and fast-paced development. What about the wildlife, the deer and bear and elk that live in the forest, and the hundreds of species of birds and small mammals whose lives would be at risk?

Then there is the issue of runoff, another phenomenon of the west coast, where we get a lot of rain. Anything we put on the ground is bound to find its way into a stream, a river, our drinking water and, eventually, the ocean that surrounds us.

One of the small vegetable farms along the rail line is Ironwood Farm, a small organic farm that sells local produce to a local market in the spring and summer. These farmers were particularly concerned about runoff and over-spraying, which would contaminate their wonderful produce and render it unsellable. This would not only damage their reputation as organic farmers but would have a devastating financial impact on the family run business. But--

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must agree with my hon. colleague on a couple of points she made in her speech. Funding for education and for the environment has been cut. I must agree with her comments with respect to the issue of child care not being a national program, but basically being a family allowance for the children of Canada.

However, I have to shake my head a bit at some of her logic. I heard her hon. colleagues speaking in the House the other day and they were saying that every child in Canada had the right to an affordable national child care program. I have to wonder about their comments because we heard promises being made by that side of the House for 13 years. My children grew up without the benefit of a child care program.

There were many surpluses over the years. In fact, she said that in the last Parliament there was an $8 billion surplus. I am just wondering why the Liberal government did not provide a national child care program. Why is it that at the behest of the NDP the Liberals actually started on that road?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many hon. members talk about what is in this budget but I am concerned about what is not in it. That is the lack of mention of something that is crucial to my riding.

Salmon fishing is a part of the culture of Vancouver Island North and that fishery is in decline. I have met with fishermen, first nations, fisheries biologists, and hatchery workers and they have all told me that we need more enhancement.

With the $10 million announcement for east coast aquaculture last week, could the member tell me why there was nothing in this budget about investment for salmon enhancement of our west coast fishery?

[Status of Women, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to see which way a country is headed, we must look at the country's budget and how it allocates resources for women. I read through the budget documents that were tabled in the House yesterday and I could only find the word “women” mentioned once.

Women make up 52% of the population of this country and, after years of empty promises, were looking at this budget for a commitment to ensure equality. There was a missed opportunity, with billions in surplus, for the government to commit funding to organizations that advocate for women.

I am particularly concerned about the lack of investment in programs that advance women's rights. Organizations such as Status of Women Canada fear they will be included in the Conservatives' billion dollars in cuts because of the abysmal lack of priority given to women in this budget.

I call on this government to make real commitments to ensure equality and to protect the rights of women in Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding of Vancouver Island North, throughout B.C. and across Canada are being affected by the softwood lumber conflict. Enough money has been given away. Enough jobs have been lost. Enough families' lives have been destroyed. This is happening in spite of Canada's repeated wins at the NAFTA appeal courts.

Will the Minister of International Trade explain to the people of my riding how he could ever think that the deal we are hearing about is in the best interests of Canadians?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments regarding the military. Because I did not get an opportunity last night to address some of my concerns, I would like to talk about that now.

I want to remind people that there is a very large air force base in my riding, CFB Comox. I had the opportunity to tour that base with the colonel and some of the other military brass a number of weeks ago. We had a very frank discussion on what is happening in Afghanistan and what our troops our doing there from their perspective. I was able to ask some very serious questions. It was a good discussion and I am glad that we had it.

I learned many things while I was there. I met with some men and women who had just come back from Afghanistan. They had been building some infrastructure over there. One of the things they told me was that they might not agree with what we are saying, but they will lay down their lives for our right to say it. I thought that was very poignant based on the debate that we had last night where some of us felt that our rights to say what we felt in this House were being diminished.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your ascension to Deputy Speaker.

Regarding the delay in the residential school payment, the residents of Vancouver Island North and first nations communities across the board have said to me that this needs to come forth now. They have waited many, many years.

The effects of the residential school abuse are not just found in the elders. Some of them have passed away. It is a multi-generational issue. It has affected their children and their children's children. It has affected their ability to become productive citizens in their communities. They want healing. They want to be able to move on, to move past this and to build their communities in a more positive way.

The government has an obligation to first nations and we want to see that followed through in a very quick manner. We should not tolerate delays because first nations have suffered far too long.

Regarding anti-scab legislation, this is something I have long fought for, of course, being from the labour movement. We saw a perfect example last year with the Telus dispute. That dispute went on for months and months. People who had a legal right to strike were on the streets while others were doing their jobs.

If we had that legislation in place, it would limit the length of strikes. We would see a quicker end to disputes, we could move forward and there would not be such tensions in the workplace.