Paul Dewar

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second:

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

The Auditor General went on to say:

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

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

Nothing could be further from the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

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.

[Points of Order, May 16th, 2006]

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.

[Immigration, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre are fortunate to live in a city that celebrates its diversity. Every year, we welcome thousands of newcomers to Ottawa.

We are also fortunate to have two organizations, the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization and the Catholic Immigration Centre, which help those who have recently arrived in Canada to participate fully in our community and ensure that newcomers are given the resources they require to successfully settle in the city.

This benefits all of us. Immigration increases our cultural and economic productivity.

However, the inequities between provinces in settlement and language training funding for new immigrants must be addressed. New measures must be taken to ensure Canada is able to support the talents, skills and experience that new Canadians can bring to our country so that we, as a country, can surely flourish.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. That is why we have a plan to address climate change.

We cannot cherry pick air quality or water quality. We have to look at the whole package. We have to look at energy policy. We have to look at how we live, how we transport our goods and how we transport ourselves.

I talked about all the effects in Canada. If I had more time, I would talk about the whole global situation, the effects on poverty and the effects on development. Yes, we must look at it from a much wider scope. That was a great question.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House and others about the thoughts of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition because, as I said in my speech, it is most extraordinary and bizarre that we are having to debate this. It is most extraordinary and bizarre, as I laid out in my comments. The scientific community has a consensus on this. We are here now asking for action. I am deeply concerned. It is scandalous the fact that someone would stand up, even after a consensus in the global community, and say, “We actually do not believe that and we stand against it”.

I said before that I am an optimist. I am hoping that people have now seen the light and have seen a green light that says go and not stop on climate change.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, of course we will, but the question is the how, not the will. Right now we do not see the how from the government.

We have offered a plan. We had a plan in the last Parliament by my colleague, the NDP environment critic. It is available. It is on our website. The government should feel free to take it.

The problem is the kind of dialogue which we would like to have was falling on deaf ears previously with the Liberal government, notwithstanding the changes that we got made to the budget. It seems to be the same now, but I am an optimist and I am hoping we will not see the same pattern.

Of course we want to help out, but we need to see a plan. Apparently there was a plan a year ago. Now we hear that the Conservatives will consult, that they will work on it, that there will be round tables, square tables, I do not know, but we need to act. It is almost too late. If the hon. member wants a plan, we have it. The member should please take it.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Someone who is involved in the issues of health might want to know that it costs more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeisms. This is according to the Ontario Medical Association.

In Quebec the flooding of the Saguenay Valley in 1996 caused almost $1.1 billion worth of damage and killed 10 people. Damage from the 1998 ice storm was also in the billions. In Atlantic Canada sea levels are rising and severe storms in New Brunswick and P.E.I. in the past few years have damaged coastal communities.

In northern regions, as we have talked about, scientists are already reporting serious changes in the polar bear population. Warmer arctic weather patterns are causing earlier ice breaks and are affecting the feeding habits of bears as well as the use of ice as a platform for things like the seal hunt.

What can we do? I have laid out the argument. We have climate change and what is affected. We can do a heck of a lot more than what is being proposed by the government.

We need to strengthen the emissions reduction targets. We need to enforce them and implement backstop legislation for automakers, so that if they do not do the right thing voluntarily, we make sure that it is enforced to ensure they make the transition.

We need to provide incentives to promote the adoption of energy efficient technologies and non-polluting renewable electricity generation.

We need to set building efficiency standards. I am proud that in the western part of my riding of Ottawa Centre, Mountain Equipment Co-op, bar none, set the standard on how to create and build energy efficient buildings. It can be done. It needs support. We should move on it.

We need to use the partnership funds to lever actions from the provinces and territories on the implementation of renewable energies.

We could also take a look at how we generate energy. I do not think there has been enough done. We could take a look at wind energy in Europe. Spain set targets and exceeded them. What we have right now in Canada is just a blip on the map. We have not gone far enough in terms of wind energy.

We know it can be done. We are looking for leadership. We are looking to the federal government, and the current government in particular, since it seems to want to do something about climate change, to invest. Sadly, we did not see that in the budget. With all due respect to bus passes, we need to go further than that.

We need to make sure there is infrastructure. We need to make sure that there is clean green energy to drive those buses. We need to make sure that when people go to work they have options that presently are not in front of them. Quite frankly, that is an issue in my own riding.

I started off my comments by saying it is an embarrassment in having to have this debate today. We should be talking about how much further we could be going. Instead we are trying to convince people of the fact that there is a necessary call to arms on this, that this is the issue, and that this is something we should all be focusing on daily. We hope that when we look back at this debate 10 years from now, we will be able to say that we actually listened and we took action.