Rick Norlock

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the hon. member when he was discussing in particular the use of alternates to pesticides. I wondered where he was going with some of the other comments near the end of his speech, in particular his conversion from conservatism to so-called liberalism and then his conversion from Kyoto being on the back of a napkin to how wonderful and beautiful and everything around it is now.

Speaking of conversions, I listened intently to some of his statements with regard to alternatives to pesticides. Having used parasitic nematodes in my garden and having looked at alternate plant species, I wonder if he knows from his riding or from his personal experience how effective or sometimes ineffective some of these alternatives are.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my report to this place, there are over 200 stringent regulatory tests that occur in order for Health Canada, PMRA and other agencies to ensure the products they approve for use. It must be remembered that they approve these products for use if one uses them according to the label. It is very necessary, and indeed very prudent, for all of us to remind those who are going to use these products that they are approved for use provided one uses them according to the label.

I have every faith that the PMRA, Health Canada and other agencies are working very hard to ensure that these products are the safest possible products that we can possibly use.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if not properly managed, pests can affect our quality of life in many different ways. Fungi or mould can cause a farmer's field of wheat to be unacceptable. Weeds can reduce that same farmer's yield by almost half. Spruce budworm and western beetles are wreaking havoc in many of Canada's forests. Mosquitoes can carry the risk of West Nile virus. No one wants cockroaches in their residences or bedbugs in their beds. Pests can represent a threat to public health and to the environment and can create significant negative impacts for our economy if they are not efficiently controlled.

As many members are aware, pesticides are products that are developed to control, destroy or inhibit the activities of pests. Some pesticide products are available for domestic or home use, while a larger number are available for commercial or restricted uses.

At the same time, pesticides differ from many other substances that enter our environment. They are not byproducts of another process but are intentionally used and released for specific purposes. The biological activity of most pesticides is what makes them valuable to Canadian society, while at the same time it means that the use and release of these products must be carefully regulated and controlled.

There can be risks associated with the use of pesticides. For this reason, pesticides are among the most rigorously tested and regulated substances in the world. In Canada, all pesticides are subject to the federal Pest Control Products Act. Under this act, pesticides must be approved and registered before sale or use in Canada.

It is Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, that is responsible for administering this act. For a product to be approved, the health risks, the environmental risks and the value of the product must all be acceptable.

Before a new pesticide is registered, more than 200 scientific studies must be conducted to determine if the pesticide would cause any negative effects on people, animals, birds, insects and plants, as well as the soil and the water.

Detailed studies regulating possible adverse health effects must be carried out by industry, investigating effects that may result from acute, short term or chronic exposures. Studies are required to assess potential long term adverse effects on reproduction, development, the endocrine, nervous and immune systems, and the toxic effects such as cancer. All possible routes of exposure such as ingestion, deposit on the skin and inhalation are examined.

The PMRA requires and evaluates special studies that characterize the unique exposures of infants and children. These studies examine the potential effects of pesticide exposure on the pregnant mother, the fetus and the young child. Studies that consider the unique exposures of children include the minute exposure to residues in breast milk and in fruits and vegetables, as well as exposure through skin contact with treated surfaces while crawling or playing.

These studies are carefully evaluated by the PMRA scientists to ensure that the pesticide does not pose a health concern when used according to the label. Maximum residue limits, or MRLs, are set if pesticides are used on food crops. These limits ensure that the consumption of food, for a lifetime, does not pose a health concern. If the submitted data or any other relevant scientific evidence, including results of epidemiology studies, raise health concerns about the pesticides and its proposed use, the pesticide is not registered.

A similarly rigorous approach is taken to identify and evaluate the environmental risks of a pesticide. Health Canada scientists determine the fate of the pesticide in the environment and whether it will contaminate ground or surface waters such as lakes, streams and rivers. They also identify which species might be vulnerable to pesticides and which species are likely to be exposed under normal use conditions.

Toxicity studies are also required for a range of wildlife, including birds, fish and mammals, as well as beneficial organisms such as earthworms. The pesticide will not be registered if it poses a risk to the environment.

Finally, a pesticide must have value in order to be registered. It must be efficacious and the host or crop that is being protected from the pest must not be harmed by the pesticide. The efficacy studies allow Health Canada to ensure that only the lowest effective rate is allowed, thereby minimizing possible human and environmental exposure.

In 2001, following public consultation, the government implemented a new approach to re-evaluating older pesticides that first were marketed prior to 1995. This is to ensure that they meet modern standards. Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency has committed to complete the re-evaluation of these older pesticides by 2009.

The new approach to re-evaluation has prioritized work by considering the pesticides used on crops and any identified health or environmental concerns. It makes maximum use of recent re-evaluations completed by other countries, particularly the U.S. This will permit the completion of the re-evaluation of older pesticides as soon as possible to ensure that Canadians' health and that of the Canadian environment continue to be protected.

It is important that everyone recognize that the regulation of pesticides is a shared responsibility with our provincial and territorial colleagues. A strong system of provincial and territorial legislation addresses the sale, transportation, storage, use and disposal of registered pesticides, taking into account provincial and territorial conditions and concerns.

The federal-provincial-territorial committee on pest management and pesticides brings together federal, provincial and territorial pesticide officials to exchange information and expertise and to provide advice and direction to governments on programs, policies and issues related to pesticides. Regulators at all levels work together toward the common goal of protecting Canadians from any risks posed by pesticides.

Health Canada's PMRA has also worked at the international level, actively cooperating with pesticides regulators around the world. Under NAFTA, there is close collaboration with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, also responsible for pesticide regulation. Some of the notable accomplishments include harmonizing data requirements, increased availability of lower risk products, the establishment of worker safety programs and the establishment of integrated pest management programs.

There is also a successful joint scientific review process for pesticides between Health Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This is a formal process with specific timelines in which the workload is divided between the two countries involved, the reviews of data are exchanged and a peer reviewed and cooperative risk assessment is undertaken, all with the goal of harmonized and simultaneous registration decisions in the two countries.

Canada also participates actively with both NAFTA partners as well as members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to ensure that standards for pesticides incorporate the latest scientific knowledge.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that we recognize the risks that can be associated with pesticides. This is why Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency stringently regulates pesticides in Canada, and we have full confidence in our regulatory system.

[Justice, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the effects of the lenient Liberal approach to crime and justice in this country. While the former Liberal justice minister spent time flip-flopping on his position on mandatory minimum sentencing, this party took action.

The introduction of new measures last week will lead to safer streets and communities for Canadians. Can the justice minister explain to the opposition why these measures are necessary?

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

Mr. Speaker, back in the mid to late 1970s, I too used a family member to help raise my two boys when my wife and I were working. I too hired a trusted friend at $20 a day, which many of my friends said was a huge amount of money, but a caring, loving friend, relative or neighbour is in my view a choice that I made and that everyone can make. I just want the hon. member to know that some of the statistics I have read indicate that if one out of--

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

Mr. Speaker, I come from a working class family. I am the eldest of six children. I can recall wearing hand-me-downs, et cetera. I can say that the $1,200 for every child under six, which the government proposes, will indeed affect mostly Canadians of lesser means.

In addition, I have heard talk in the House of how supposedly little the 1% reduction in the GST will mean to people as a whole. In particular, I have seen many statistics where it is actually the poorest people who will save the most. Under the former Liberal government's reduction plan, 32% of Canadians would pay no tax and would receive nothing from their tax reduction. Every Canadian will receive a benefit from the 1% reduction in the GST. That will go a long way to helping people manage their budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, on my first occasion to speak in this place, let me congratulate you on your appointment. I will be sharing my time this evening with my hon. colleague from Langley.

I would like to thank once again the great citizens of Northumberland—Quinte West for placing their trust and faith in me in order to act in their best interests and that of their families. That I take as a sacred trust and shall, therefore, be ever mindful of the great responsibility, the honour and the privilege to represent them in this most august place.

Further, I want to thank my life partner, my wife of 33 years, for all her support and love. Judy and my sons James and Matthew keep this member grounded with their love.

It is in this vein that I wish to speak to the House on the Speech from the Throne and especially those particulars surrounding health care.

I live in the village of Warkworth. Many of my neighbours must from time to time travel for medical interventions and treatment. In recent years I have become dismayed and distressed with the increase in wait times. Sadly, over the last 10 years, they have doubled. However, there is light at the end of the wait times tunnel. Our government has made a commitment to reduce wait times and will guarantee reasonable wait times. This is a priority.

Last Friday, when I went home to the riding, my first stop was at the funeral of a well known and dearly loved constituent. Our friend and neighbour died of that dastardly disease that is no stranger to many of our friends and family, and that is cancer. As unfortunate as this story is, I know that even in his worst moments, he received the best care from people he loved. Our government has made a statement on wait times guarantee and I want to be sure that Canadians receive the health care they have paid for with their hard earned tax dollars.

As I mentioned, I am not new to the evils of cancer, nor are my colleagues, many of whom are in the House here now. My mother, brother and sister have been affected by this disease. Fortunately, they received the care they needed. However, far too often Canadians find themselves on waiting lists that are far too long, forcing them to wait, sometimes in pain, discomfort and fear, and some at risk to their lives.

I want to ensure that no Canadian has to wait too long for treatment. I know that this government to which I belong will ensure that no Canadian is left out in the cold and that we will work together with our provincial partners in order to meet the wait times guarantee.

I know the Minister of Health and his team are working very hard and are responsible for a budget of $41 billion over 10 years in health care and will be contributing to the health care envelope. I am happy to report that $5.5 billion of that has been earmarked specifically to reduce wait times. That is no small amount.

Further, the guarantee will ensure that if people cannot get the medical care they need where they live, in the public system and within an established benchmark, they will be able to get that care either outside their community or their province, with the cost being covered by the public insurance system. No one can argue that this is significant progress.

Thinking outside the box, commonly referred to as innovation, will be critical to ensure that health care remains timely and sustainable. It should be noted by all in the House, indeed this country, that Alberta has recently reduced wait times from 47.7 weeks to 4.7 weeks for hip and knee replacements. This clearly demonstrates that dramatic, patient-centre innovation is achievable within our current public health care system. We must be mindful that these approaches must be consistent with the principles of a universally accessible and equitable public health care system.

We in Cobourg are most fortunate to have a state of the art new hospital due in part to the current minister, when he acted in his provincial capacity, and most commendably due to the generosity of the people of west Northumberland. In Quinte West there is an expanded hospital at the Trenton Memorial Hospital, part of the Quinte health care system. The hospital my family and I use is in Campbellford. The Campbellford Memorial Hospital is a most caring, loving and competent place with which to receive health care. Some of the best hospitals are in my riding and the health care workers, men and women, who operate them are second to none.

In addition to health care, I want to remind Canadians why they voted for this new government. It is because we promised to deliver five key priorities: cutting the GST from 7% to 6% and then to 5%; ensuring our communities are safe by cracking down on gun, gang and drug crime; giving parents choice in child care with a $1,200 annual payment for each child under the age of six; creating 125,000 more child care spaces; and working with the provinces and territories to establish to a health care patient wait times guarantee.

I look forward to the things that are to come under the direction of the new Prime Minister, including today's announcement of the federal accountability act. This is just another way we are sticking to our election platform commitments. That is why I am so pleased to see the Speech from the Throne set an agenda and stick to it, which is a welcome change to what we have seen in governments past.