ENVI Committee Report

12.    URGENT NEED FOR ACTION: AWARENESS, REDUCTION, PHASE OUT

---

12.1    The Committee has made a number of disquieting observations regarding the possible effects of pesticides on vulnerable population groups, most notably children. The members have realized that there is a lack of scientific information, and this has led them to the conclusion that the precautionary principle must be applied and that scientific research must be continued and promoted. The Committee also noted that there are alternatives to pesticides. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has an integrated pest management program, farmers are already implementing the principles of organic farming, some environmental agencies are working on alternatives to pesticides that are tailored to the urban environment or the agricultural sector. Some tools already exist, others must be developed, and those that are already available must be improved and promoted. The Committee also believes that the general public can play an important role in reducing pesticide use. Consider, for example, the increasing number of municipalities which are working to adopt by-laws on pesticide use. This type of action is generally taken in response to requests from and lobbying by citizens. But much remains to be done to raise awareness among the general public about health risks due to pesticides. The witnesses explained how informing those who use pesticides and the public in general is a prerequisite for a good pesticides management system.

The Importance of an Awareness Campaign

12.2    According to information provided by the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, most Canadian municipalities are already taking part in integrated pest management programs.²²¹ As of 1999, however, only the province of Quebec had given municipalities the power to establish by-laws governing the use of pesticides in their municipality. As a result, some Quebec municipalities have begun to prohibit the use of chemical pesticides within their boundaries. For instance, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities informed the Committee, the municipalities of Chelsea and Hudson adopted by-laws prohibiting pesticides within their boundaries.²²²

12.3    The Committee applauds the initiatives that have been taken by various Canadian municipalities. In Ontario, the City of Waterloo's Plant Health Care Program enables the municipality to reduce the amount of pesticides used to maintain its green spaces. Ottawa-Carleton now has an interim pesticide use protocol which was developed in co-operation with the Sierra Club of Canada. The town of Dundas has adopted a zero pesticide use policy for the year 2000.²²³

Pesticide Reduction in Ontario A Few Figures Ontario farmers have reduced their use of agricultural pesticides by 40.7% since 1983, when Ontario introduced the program aimed at a 50% reduction in pesticide use by the year 2002. Since 1992, as part of the Ontario Waste Agricultural Pesticides Collection Program, more than 35,000 kgs and 59,000 litres of unwanted or unusable (outdated, deteriorated or contaminated) pesticides have been brought into 26 collection depots and disposed of. (AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment))

12.4    In the Committee's view, these few examples show that it is possible for Canadian society to evolve towards a reduction in pesticide use. We are currently witnessing an increase in public interest in the pesticides issue. The Committee believes that it would be timely to organize a national pesticide information campaign for Canadians. The campaign would provide information about pesticides, about alternatives, about the health risks involved in using pesticides, and about their role in certain sectors such as agriculture. Committee members learned that those who work with pesticides should, for their own protection, be well-informed. A number of witnesses also emphasized the fact that, to protect children, parents have to be well-informed. As children grow up they are likely to be exposed to pesticides in many locations, inside their homes as well as outside. If parents are informed about the risks associated with the application of these products in their surroundings, chances are that their use of pesticides will change. For children, the environment is not any safer outside the home; the majority of Canadian children live in an urban environment, where pesticide use for esthetic purposes is on the rise. It is of the utmost importance that all governments be made aware of the risks involved in applying pesticides in a public park, for instance, some municipalities have decided to take action, and Action Chelsea for Respect of the Environment (ACRE), which appeared before the Committee on November 30, 1999, believes that the Canadian government should show the same degree of initiative as the municipalities of Hudson and Chelsea have shown in protecting the environment and the health of Canadians.²²⁴ The Committee approves of this view since pesticides know no boundaries. Under a national pesticides awareness campaign, similar to the tobacco campaign, the federal government could implement a variety of measures: Health Canada could be responsible for the project, the awareness campaign could receive permanent funding, appropriate labels could be developed for pesticide packaging (listing all ingredients, giving percentages of total volume, PMRA product evaluation date, warnings, and so on) and organic pest control and lawn maintenance methods could be promoted. The federal government would be sending a clear signal that it is genuinely concerned about the health of Canadians.

Pesticide Reduction at the Federal Level

12.5    The Committee is of the opinion that the government could show even greater initiative by setting an example of good pesticide management within its "own house." In other words, the government should make pesticide reduction one of its own main priorities. In view of their considerable supply and service acquisition activity, federal departments and agencies are doubtless major users of pesticides. They should have a greater obligation to report on their pesticide use. For instance, all government bodies, including the parapublic sector, could provide a model to follow by reporting to Parliament on their use of pesticides and by developing concrete pesticide use reduction strategies. Reporting and strategy development could be included in the sustainable development strategies that all ministers have had to prepare for their departments and table in the House of Commons since 1995, when the Auditor General Act was amended. Canadians should be able to find out about actions taken by the federal government, whether for maintaining transportation routes or keeping access to power transmission lines open, or for park maintenance.

 

12.6    Once the government has provided information to Canadians, and once it has reduced its own pesticide use, a third step can be contemplated. The Committee feels it would at that point be possible to implement a national pesticides reduction plan, that would involve all levels of government working together to achieve this objective. Past experience has shown that the federal government, its provincial and territorial partners and the private sector work well together on joint projects. The National Packaging Protocol is a case in point. The federal government could be guided by the action plans developed by European countries and referred to in this report to promote organic farming. The approaches developed by Denmark and Austria are of particular interest.

Gradual Reduction in the Use of Pesticides for Cosmetic Purposes

12.7    The Committee is convinced that, once Canadians are aware of the consequences of pesticide use in the environment, there will be a gradual reduction in pesticide use for cosmetic purposes in urban areas. A reduction of pesticide use in Canada can only be achieved if the general public is informed. The support of consumers, producers and retailers is necessary if pesticide use is to be reduced.

12.8    A number of witnesses informed the Committee that they are opposed to pesticide use for esthetic purposes in urban areas. According to the Working Group on the Health Dangers of Urban Pesticide Use, Nature-Action Québec, Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides and the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, pesticides are used principally for esthetic purposes in urban areas and this poses an unnecessary risk for those applying the products and the general public. It cannot be emphasized enough that children at all stages of growth are the primary victims of our overuse of chemicals. As many of the effects of exposure to pesticides are chronic, they may well suffer the consequences of exposure all their lives and even pass this on to the next generation. 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 and some light has been shed on the consequences of their use 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.

 

---

²²¹ Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, Brief to the Committee.

²²² Municipal authorities have sufficient powers to protect residents' health and safety and to legislate against nuisances. According to some lawyers, this enables them to prohibit the use of pest control products. The Court of Quebec has proven to be of this view and has supported the efforts made by the town of Hudson to prohibit pesticides within municipal boundaries. (Hudson's prohibition provided for exemptions for pest control products used inside buildings, biological herbicides, and products and other organisms that do not pose a threat to human health.)

²²³ Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Brief to the Committee.

²²⁴ Action Chelsea for Respect of the Environment, Brief to the Committee.