ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, September 25, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Order.

[Translation]

Good afternoon and welcome everyone.

[English]

We have a long list of witnesses wishing to speak and we welcome you all in this room. This committee is very happy to have the opportunity of getting together and revisiting an issue that is never visited enough and needs constant attention, care, and political pressure.

The committee today is ready to start. I have a brief announcement to the effect that downstairs, in room 200, there is a magnificent activity consisting of displays and organic food—actually we can already see some evidence here. The afternoon is intended to be an information and public education event in room 200, and then at 6 o'clock it will peak with a number of speeches under the capable chairmanship of Mr. Clifford Lincoln. We will all enjoy, I think, a social event of that kind.

I welcome also those of you who are in the room and are not witnesses. I recognize a number of familiar faces. Time here is always very valuable, and there may also be a vote that will interfere with our proceedings later in the afternoon, possibly after 5 o'clock. Therefore, I would invite those who are representing the organizations listed on this sheet to proceed in the order of listing. I would invite the speakers to keep their comments to about three or four minutes, so as to allow everybody to have a chance to speak. It is an important fact that usually the most important information comes to the surface during the question and answer period.

Who would like to therefore speak on behalf of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick? Nobody here?

We have the Sierra Club-Chinook Group.

Ms. Jennifer Wright (Sierra Club-Chinook Group): Yes.

The Chair: You will be speaking for them? Then you will be followed by the World Wildlife Fund Canada. Is that present in the room? Not yet. The Ontario Landscape Alliance—is there anyone here?

Ms. Sheryl Shour (President, Organic Landscape Alliance): It should be the Organic Landscape Alliance.

The Chair: “Organic” instead of “Ontario”, thank you.

Then we have the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment—you're there, thank you. And then we have Jean-Dominique Levesque-René. Is he here? No, he hasn't arrived yet. Oh, yes, there he is in front. Rod MacRae is present. The Sierra Club of Canada, Angela Rickman—she is coming. Julia Langer is here for WWF. Nature-Action Quebec—merci. CropLife Canada is here, thank you. And finally among the listed ones we have Organic Landscape Alliance.

• 1540

Ms. Sheryl Shour: Twice.

The Chair: We'll start in the order that we just called. The Sierra Club-Chinook Group.

Ms. Jennifer Wright: Starting this meeting out, I'm not sure what tone to set. I imagine most people in the room are fairly informed on the issue, and so without going into any detail on what my concerns are, I'm going to focus on the Calgary aspect of things. I'm guessing that's probably the direction I should be going.

My name is Jennifer Wright and I'm with the Sierra Club based in Calgary. We have been working in conjunction with several other groups to reduce cosmetic pesticide use in our city. So where we've gone with that is city council. We've worked through the direction of starting a bylaw to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides in parks and green spaces, as many other people here are trying to do in their communities across Canada.

The City Council of Calgary decided it was a little premature to look at reducing cosmetic pesticides to any great extent. As many of you are probably aware, the City of Calgary has a program called integrated pest management, which they promote quite highly, and they will probably tell anyone who contacts them in Parks and Recreation that they feel integrated pest management is a great system, the idea being that it should reduce the amount of pesticides used by, again, applying safer alternatives where possible. The Sierra Club does not support integrated pest management at all, and we feel that in Calgary it has not been used the way it's been described in this manual. We are a little concerned that Ottawa was considering looking at this plan.

The City of Calgary still considers the dandelion to be a noxious weed. It's one of the few places in Canada where it's illegal to have a seeding dandelion on your lawn. We're concerned about that, because dandelions, as we all know, are fairly nutritious plants and phenomenally useful. If anyone has tried dandelion root coffee, we know there's more calcium in the root of a dandelion than there is in the average equivalent amount of milk and more beta carotene than in a carrot, etc. It's a very nutritious plant. We tried to take that off the city bylaw list last year, unsuccessfully.

The one thing we did achieve in Calgary last year, having many thousands of people sign a petition directed at these issues, was to implement an education program in Calgary. So right now the City of Calgary is working with the Sierra Club and many other environment groups to try to educate or sensitize Calgarians to the dangers of cosmetic pesticide use and the safer alternatives. That's where the issue stands in our city right now.

I have to say—I'm in my last thirty seconds, I'm guessing—that Health Canada, we feel, is moving forward on this issue at the lightning speed of a glacier. We're a bit concerned, because when we come up against city council or city administration on this issue, time and again we're told that until Health Canada takes these products off the market—and I'm talking about the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, mecoprop, and the insecticides, like chloropyrophos, which, again, I guess we all looked at quite extensively last year—or deregisters them, the City of Calgary considers them very safe.

So I'm here today because if we don't work at a federal level on this issue and if we don't go with some of the recommendations on this report, which is excellent and really does cover the issues thoroughly, I don't think we're going to get as far as we would like as fast as we would like. This is an issue of some urgency right now, if we're looking at clean water and clean air in our country over the next few years and the well-being of our children and future generations.

So my last statement would be that pesticides, if used at all, should be used as a last resort. We should be looking at them in that light from a cosmetic perspective at all times.

• 1545

I realize that in the near future we're going to be dealing with West Nile disease and the mosquito issue, and I would hope that the good sense of this report will prevail and we will be looking at some reasonable and safer alternatives to manage this and some of the other issues that are going to come at us in the next few years.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wright.

The purpose, of course, of what is taking place this afternoon here on the Hill is to urge the Minister of Health to introduce a bill in the House for first and second reading that would amend the current Pest Control Act, which is now over 30 years old. Therefore, your observations about the impressive speed of that department are taken particularly to heart.

The only member at this table who comes from Alberta is Mr. Mills, and perhaps he has lines of communication with Calgary city council to be of assistance to you—who knows? You may want to have a chat with him later.

The next speaker is the World Wildlife Fund, Julia Langer, the director of international programs. Welcome to Canada.

Ms. Julia Langer (Director, International Programs, World Wildlife Fund Canada): Thank you, Mr. Caccia. I'm grateful for the opportunity to address this committee again, and I congratulate you once again on the work you've done in looking at this whole issue in a comprehensive way and for the events hosted today to raise broader awareness beyond the walls of this committee. I think people were coming to be informed, and one hopes they were converted.

We've had some extensive, substantive discussions at this committee in the past with the members around the table, and what I hope I can do today is have a very low-key, polite temper tantrum about what isn't happening—the reference to the glacial speed is totally appropriate. Your committee's report stands on its own in respect of content, recommendations, etc. The minister responsible, Mr. Rock, has promised and promised, and we hear that there is an intention. But from what we're seeing, there are a couple of barriers that perhaps this committee, beyond the substantive aspects you've already detailed, can help with in a very targeted way.

One seems to be that there isn't funding to go in tandem with legislation. Recognizing the need for some fiscal responsibility and not putting forward legislation without the commensurate financial means to implement it is logical, but it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. We would urge all of you to try to get the bill over that hump somehow, so that it's not waiting and waiting forever. We don't have a budget now—are we waiting for a budget, are we waiting for an economic statement? What are we waiting for in the matter of tabling legislation? I urge all of you to put your oar in specifically on that matter, so that we can actually get a bill tabled and up for parliamentary debate.

I think the second has to do with the knee-jerk reaction about who will be opposed to this. You heard extensive deputations from the various players involved, and there are some people around this table who, along with me, have sat on a committee advising the Minister of Health about the legislation, whether to proceed, and all the stakeholders have actually indicated that there is a need for amendment—sometimes for different reasons, but we all agree there's a need for amendment.

I think the competitiveness issue is coming faster and stronger than ever before. Even if you don't do it on an environmental or health protection rationale, which I think you should, there is a very strong economic rationale. The farm community is talking about needing access to alternative products, lower-risk materials, methodologies for growing food differently, and that applies to the herb and the industrial context as well. We can't let that stand as a barrier. It isn't a barrier. There are lots of very good reasons. You're not going to have a huge conflict situation on your hands in Parliament or at other committees, such as the health committee.

• 1550

One of the things we're doing—and I would invite you to go down to Mr. Caccia's event in room 200—to demonstrate that in fact we are on the same page with some of the farm organizations is working with apple growers in Ontario, and this is one of the products of that effort. We're actually implementing pesticide-reduction initiatives that demonstrate this is possible. A piece of legislation is not the answer. It's a piece of the answer and a piece of the puzzle.

I would also urge you to look at some of the proposals that the Green Budget Coalition has put forward. I spoke to the finance committee this morning and emphasized the sustainable agriculture fund proposal, which would provide incentives, programs, and assistance. All of this adds up to something that will help Canada reduce reliance, a goal I think everybody shares.

It really is a bit frustrating, I'm sure, for the committee as well to have done all of this intellectual work and have it sort of floundering for a champion. So I hope you'll all be champions and that Mr. Rock will follow through with his promise to introduce this. And please do call on the World Wildlife Fund for any assistance we can provide.

The Chair: You've come up with a very good slogan: reduce reliance. We'll keep that in mind. Thank you.

We've gone from Calgary to Toronto. Now, how about New Brunswick and the Conservation Council. I invite you to take the floor, Ms. Daborn.

Ms. Lia Daborn (Executive Director, Conservation Council of New Brunswick): Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Lia Daborn, and I am the executive director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, which is a non-profit organization. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the work we've done on pesticides and also the reaction we've seen to the report you put out last year.

I'll focus specifically on two of our projects. The first one is agriculture. I go along with a lot of what Julia Langer says. We have a sustainable agriculture project. We've worked a lot with farmers to address the idea of changing agricultural practices from chemical intensive to those that are less chemical intensive, including organic farming. We've learned that simply asking farmers to grow organic is not enough. There has to be some form of infrastructure, such as funding and support, to help the farmers in the process. You can look at examples from Europe where there has been a type of income insurance over a period of three years to ensure that farmers can slowly move over to organic agriculture without risking the family farm, as it were. We feel this would be truly effective in New Brunswick and across Canada, but it must be instituted over a long term and with secure funding.

Through our work educating farm families about endocrine disruption, we've discovered a desire for more information and education about health impacts. When we talked to farm families, we found that they didn't know about the health risks related to the pesticides their families were using and the ones they were exposed to on a daily basis. This information has to be more than just what is printed on a pesticide label, although that also is absolutely desirable. We need to know all of the components that are in those pesticides, and right now the inerts are not listed.

The families—brothers, sisters, wives, and children—need to know how to reduce their risk of exposure. In New Brunswick, for example, we found that not everybody actually follows the instructions on the labels. Although one person is supposed to have a permit to buy the pesticide, to make the application, one person will go buy it and somebody else will spray it, and they are not the ones who are actually legally allowed to do it. I think this is probably pretty common across Canada, although you might not be able to have anybody actually tell you that.

We also found out that when the farmers were applying to get their permits, they were required to take a course and write an exam. They brought the homework home, and their wives did the homework for them. They then went in and wrote the exam whether or not they knew what they were doing. They hadn't done the homework, so they weren't fully up to speed on all of the procedures they should be following.

Also when we talked to farm families we discovered a range of health concerns, and a lot of questions arose about statistics and health issues and how healthy the farm population is. I think the example of the Ontario farm family health study is excellent. We would like to see something like that expanded into New Brunswick and all across Canada.

There were studies in the 1970s and 1980s looking at the farm population in New Brunswick, and they discovered that we have higher rates of spina bifida and neural tube defects than anywhere else in Canada. But we don't have any up-to-date figures. We have nothing from the 1990s and nothing about what's going on right now, so we don't really know if those trends are continuing and if they're getting worse or better. There's a lot of concern in the agricultural population because they know pesticides cause cancer. But they don't know if they're getting cancer from the pesticides or from something else in the environment, and they really want to know that.

• 1555

One the reasons we had done this work originally was because of the potato belt, a highly agricultural area where potatoes are grown in New Brunswick, from Edmundston to Grand Falls. Certain fungicides that are used for potato blight in the region have been identified as endocrine disrupters. So we recommended out of that study that there is a need to focus on child development particularly in that area of the province.

Finally, in terms of agriculture but absolutely applicable in other senses, there need to be cost-effective alternatives to the pesticides that are available now. We heard this from the farmers and from the average citizens, but in agriculture it is of paramount importance.

I focused on agriculture first because it was addressed in the standing committee's report. But we haven't seen a really tangible response from the federal government, and I think this is very important. This aspect of the pesticide issue cannot be ignored. The Conservation Council would certainly be willing to come and talk to you further about the work we have done in this area and the work that is being done by other people in this area as well.

Our other area of concern, of course, is that of cosmetic pesticides. I would like to congratulate the standing committee for the work you did on your report of May 2000. It has served as an excellent resource for those of us who are active in the public arena and something we have been able to hand out to municipal leaders and the general public and explain to them that this is the research that is available.

I'm here today as a representative of the New Brunswick Pesticides Coalition, which came together over the last year. It is a group of health and environmental organizations in New Brunswick.

We developed a resolution asking our provincial minister of environment to restrict the supply, sale, and use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in New Brunswick under the power she actually has in the New Brunswick Pesticides Control Act. We circulated this resolution and got the support of over 275,000 New Brunswickers. So we have about a third of the population supporting a ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides, and I think that should indicate to you that there is a real groundswell of support and a lot of people interested in seeing this go further. For us in New Brunswick, of course, that's no small potatoes. Our minister is reluctant and is waiting for direction from the federal government. We do support the idea proposed by the standing committee that the new pesticides act prohibit the registration and reregistration of pesticides for cosmetic purposes.

With the Hudson ruling by the Supreme Court, many communities in New Brunswick and across Canada are considering bylaws to limit application of pesticides. Although this is a great step, it's going to result in a patchwork quilt of bylaw application across Canada. We have been told by lawn care companies that as long as the chemicals are available, they're going to use them. In fact, we've been told that if they're forced through regulation to change their practices, they'll do so, but while these chemicals are still available and they're still allowed to use them, they will go on doing so, because it's easy. I think that's something you might want to consider from a federal standpoint. But they have also told us that they want to have a level playing field. They don't want to be able to use one chemical in one community and not in another, because that doesn't make business sense for them.

The Chair: I assume that was your last remark.

Ms. Lia Daborn: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Daborn.

Is Lori Stahlbrand in the room? If not, we'll go to the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Dr. Kapil Khatter.

Dr. Kapil Khatter (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment): Thank you very much. I'm Kapil Khatter. I'm with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. I also would like to thank the committee for the excellent report you have put out in terms of looking at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and what you propose for new legislation.

Although I'd love to spend hours talking about the PMRA, I'm going to just briefly get into some technical aspects of what we'd like to see in the legislation, what we think is really good about the report, and what we think is important. First, the intent of the legislation is extremely important. The legislation can't be about managing pesticides in a way that doesn't harm the economy but needs to enshrine the precautionary principle and be intended to move us toward sustainable agriculture.

Looking at how pesticides are assessed in terms of the assessment of risk for both registrations and re-evaluations, we think the PMRA needs to move their risk assessment up to present standards. The risk assessments need to be based on the most vulnerable population.

• 1600

We need to use aggregate exposure, meaning that when we know that the mode of action of pesticides is similar, or when we know that the pesticides or other chemicals are often used in combination, or when we know there is some sort of additive effect or synergistic effect between them, those chemicals need to be looked at in combination and not just individually. And we need to follow the American lead through the Food Quality Protection Act and add in the extra tenfold safety factor that has been put in to protect children. If we use an updated risk assessment like that, any pesticide that shows significant risk of harm needs to be banned or restricted.

Where does the precautionary principle fit in that? When we're considering pesticides where there is a risk of harm, where there are threats of harm, but they're not thought significant or we're not sure enough, then we need to look at the precautionary principle, and that needs to be a democratic decision involving the public to determine when to use the precautionary principle. We believe the precautionary principle should especially be used when there are other alternatives that are considered likely to be safer and when the benefit to society of a product is considered insignificant. On this basis we also support your call for a ban on cosmetic uses for pesticides, based on the precautionary principle.

We strongly support your recommendation for legislated time lines for re-evaluations. PMRA has been dragging its feet on the re-evaluations and telling us that they're in the process, but we agree that all pesticides that were registered more than five years ago need to have a legislative time line for re-evaluation, five or seven years from now, similar to the domestic substance list time lines under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We also commend the committee's recommendation for an electronic registry. The important point with the electronic registry is how complete it is, that all documents submitted for registration need to be made public, and that confidential business information is narrowly and explicitly defined in the legislation, not left up to interpretation by the agency.

Finally, we think it's important that meaningful public participation be part of all registrations and re-evaluations, and that meaningful participation needs to go past the stakeholder approach that's being used and recognize who in the process has direct financial interest and who doesn't.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was very concise and very comprehensive. If you have the time to let us have a broader summary of your intervention, particularly on the last point, it would be quite helpful.

[Translation]

Our next speaker is Jean-Dominique Levesque-René. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Jean-Dominique Levesque-René (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. It is an honour for me to have been invited here this afternoon by the Honourable Charles Caccia. Thank you, sir, for inviting me to attend A Pesticide Awareness Day on the Hill.

My name is Jean-Dominique Levesque-René and I live on Île Bizard, a west end Montreal suburb. I'm 18 years old and I attend École Jeanne-Sauvé in Dorval.

I'm here today to speak to you about a subject near and dear to me for the past seven years. It is of great interest to me because it concerns children, their health and the environment in which they live. I would like to recount briefly for you my personal experience and how chemical pesticides have affected my own health.

Let me relate to you my quest to safeguard the health of all children in my community. My fight for a healthier environment began quite unexpectedly one January evening in 1994. I was watching The Simpsons on television when I felt a lump on the right side of my neck. I showed it to my mother who wasted no time bringing me to Hôpital Sainte-Justine in Montreal. I had no idea what lay ahead for me. I spent two weeks at the hospital undergoing a battery of medical tests as doctors tried to diagnose my condition. I was a virtual prisoner in the hospital. I was frightened and worried, not to mention extremely tired. This wasn't normal for a 10 year old.

After my lump was biopsied, a doctor came to deliver the bad news. The day was February 11, 1994. I remember it very well. He told me: “Jean-Dominique, you have a disease called cancer. Your type of cancer is called large cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It attacks a person's lymph nodes as well as their immune system which protects against bacteria and viruses.” This isn't the kind of news a 10-year-old boy expects to receive. Before, I had been thinking about going home and playing with my dog and my friends. Now, I was thinking about dying. I didn't want to die, not at my age. I cried and so too did my parents and my sister. They were devastated. It was the saddest day of my life.

• 1605

Before starting my chemotherapy treatments, an oncologist came and explained the procedure to me. I didn't know that my life would be turned upside down or that this was only the start of a life-long struggle. I agreed to take part in a North American experimental research trial which would improve my chances for a cure. I was one of a group of 33 American and Canadian children. I received intensive chemotherapy treatments every three weeks over a period of 49 weeks.

The odds of my surviving this disease were 50 per cent. The doctor had cautioned me that all of my hair would fall out and that I would likely be sterile when I reached adulthood. Two weeks after I started chemotherapy, I lost all of my hair. I was bald and looked like an old man. I wore a baseball cap to cover my bald head.

Throughout my illness, I felt very alone. I spent my entire days lying in a hospital bed. I missed going to school and playing with my friends. I had a lot of time to think things over and to ask myself some questions.

When I arrived at Sainte-Justine, I noticed that there were many children there from Île Bizard who were being treated for cancer. It was very strange. I discovered that half of Île Bizard is covered by golf courses where pesticides are used to maintain the greens. There are no heavy industries or high-voltage power lines in my municipality, only residential areas surrounded by three golf courses. My city has a population of 13,5000, including 4,000 children.

During my hospital stay, I recalled that when I was two-and-a-half-years old, I had had a very bad nosebleed and been transported by ambulance to the hospital. I remembered making numerous trips back to the hospital because of nosebleeds. The doctors were unable to pinpoint the cause of my symptoms. Once, I broke out in a bad rash after playing on the lawn, two days after it had been sprayed with pesticides. I was seen by a dermatologist who immediately established a link between my rash and my exposure to pesticides on the lawn.

In the spring of 1987, my parents stopped using chemical pesticides on their lawn. My symptoms disappeared completely. They would reappear when I was exposed to grass in public parks treated with pesticides and when I played at a friend's home where pesticides had been used.

During my chemotherapy sessions, I thought about the probable link between my cancer and my exposure to pesticides. After researching the subject for one month, I came across a pamphlet published by the American Cancer Society. It contained a picture of a child playing with his dog while wearing a mask. The pamphlet established a link between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and the use of lawn herbicides containing 2,4-D, the most widely used lawn herbicide in Canada. The dialogue was straightforward and I quickly understood that exposing children like myself to pesticides posed a danger to their health.

It was then I asked my parents to take me to meet the mayor of Île Bizard so that I could show him the American Cancer Society's pamphlet on the dangers associated with pesticide use. I told him how concerned I was about the number of Île Bizard children suffering from cancer.

• 1610

At the same time, I asked him to pass a bylaw banning pesticide use in our municipality. The date was May 6, 1994. The mayor did not take my request seriously, so I decided to organize a demonstration with the help of a few friends and their parents. We marched in front of City Hall with colored balloons and placards. Television camera crews were on the scene and my protest caught the attention of all local media. My plan was to heighten the awareness of elected municipal officials, to let them know what was happening to the children of Île Bizard and to emphasize the importance of safeguarding their health.

The time had come to do battle. Just about every month, I attended the meeting of municipal councillors, urging them to adopt a bylaw banning the use of chemical pesticides. Each time, the mayor would answer that there was no scientific evidence to establish a link between cancer in humans and pesticides.

Yet, I knew for a fact that many of Île Bizard's children had contracted cancer. The reasons why I had to fight for my life then became clear to me. After a stay in intensive care, I overheard a doctor telling my parents that I would not survive a bout with infection contracted following a chemotherapy session. He was wrong. For the first time, I fought to stay alive. I understood then that my life was to have an even greater purpose. I discovered the mystery of life, not the mystery of death.

While I was a patient at Sainte-Justine, I posted a map of Quebec on the wall of my hospital room. Each time a child suffering from cancer was admitted, I would ask him where he lived. That's how I discovered that many children from Île Bizard had cancer, 22 in all. They were suffering from leukemia, lymphoma, neuroblastoma, Ewing's sarcoma or bone or brain cancer. These were my own personal findings.

I then began to put pressure on researchers at Hôpital Sainte-Justine to compile official statistics on the number of cancer cases among Île Bizard's children. With the cooperation of Montreal's public health department, they compiled figures which were reported in La Presse on February 21, 1998. These figures showed that the cancer rate on Île Bizard was four times that for the entire province of Quebec.

Unfortunately, many of my friends succumbed to their illness. I will never forget my friend Marie-Ève who died of leukemia on November 6, 1996. She was 12 years old. Before dying, she said to me: “Jean-Do, you have to live. It's time for me to go, but you have a lot of work to do to protect the children”. Marie-Ève helped me find the courage I needed to never give up the fight.

For the past seven years, I have been visiting cities and communities across Canada. I have met with children and their parents and I have observed that children seem to be suffering a great deal from asthma, allergies, learning disabilities and cancer. I cannot remain silent. Each time pesticides are sprayed in my neighbourhood, I react with an asthma attack, my allergies flare up and I get nosebleeds. I also suffer from learning disabilities in school and I have to work harder to succeed.

I recall speaking to a class of sixth graders in a Granby, Quebec primary school. One student asked me if I missed a lot of school while I was undergoing my chemotherapy treatments at the hospital. I told him that I had missed two and half years in all. His response: “Lucky you”. I told him that I would rather have gone to school than contracted cancer.

• 1615

My greatest wish is that doctors talk to their patients about the danger of exposure to pesticides and the associated health risks.

I firmly believe that cities and towns must ban the use of pesticides to improve the appearance of lawns and gardens. Our elected municipal, provincial and federal officials must protect their children from these toxic chemicals. I urge you to assume your responsibilities and to lobby the Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock, for a ban on pesticides. All Members of Parliament and all public servants need to be made aware of the dangers of pesticides in our environment. Each and everyone of us has a duty to protect our children's health.

In conclusion, I want you to know that something positive came out of my illness. Having cancer was not an enjoyable experience, but this struggle taught me to accept my responsibilities as a member of the community. We can do something to help children. You can make a difference.

[English]

I'm reminded of words of Rachel Carson:

The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Jean-Dominique.

[English]

Rod MacRae.

Mr. Rod MacRae (Individual Presentation): I apologize if I don't sound too articulate after that very moving story.

I wanted to speak to some of the recommendations in the committee's report that complement those related to the PCPA amendment, those being particularly related to what government should be doing to help farmers make the transition to integrated pest management in organic farming systems. I work a lot with farm organizations and with environmental groups who are pressing forward on this very agenda. I'd like to highlight a couple of things that I see as having shifted in the broader environment in the last year and a half since the report came out, and through that process to ask the committee to continue your exhortations to your colleagues to put in place a program of supports for farmers who want to make the transition.

I think in the external environment and, if you will, in the export world—and of course, Canada is a large exporter of food products—a number of things have shifted in the last year and a half that put Canadian farmers in some degree of jeopardy. We already know Canadian farmers are in severe financial difficulties. My particular worry is that this is going to continue, because export markets are basically noticing that Canada appears to be falling behind on many of the agri-environmental indicators that are used to assess how Canadian farming agriculture practices are affecting the environment. If you look at some of the OECD reports, Canada is not faring too well. It appears that export markets are beginning to take notice of this. Again, my fear is that it will compromise the ability of farmers to move forward.

A lot of the farm groups we work with already are finding that by shifting to integrated pest management systems, they're actually ensuring that they will have export markets in the long term. One of my colleagues at the Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association works with the World Wildlife Fund. They've been exporting fruit to Europe for a long time, and what they've found is that in order for them to sustain those markets in Europe, they've had to move to integrated pest management systems. Fortunately for them, they were already well on the road and they had a series of supports to help make that happen. Most of the farmers are very near a research facility. They had great extension support at that time from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. But a lot of growers in this country who are ready to move on this don't have those same kinds of supports.

• 1620

The Canola Council of Canada, in a report that came out last year after your report, found that a third of the canola growers in this country—which is probably in the order of 15,000 to 20,000 in total, although not all of them are large-scale growers—a significant number of Canadian farmers, are ready to move to IPM if the right supports are in place. The big challenge facing the canola industry is how to get those supports. There are no substantial programs of support for farmers who want to make the transition to IPM and organic farming systems.

The marketplace is beginning to notice this internationally; the farmers are ready to move; and the environmental community, which for many years, unfortunately, has not recognized how food and farming and agriculture are an environmental issue, are increasingly recognizing it to be so and are willing to support a positive discussion about how to help farmers do this.

The domestic markets have been in place for some time. Some of the market research says that at a minimum something like 7% to 13% of Canadian shoppers are very interested in buying the products of IPM and organic farms. This is not a niche market any more. This isn't just a 1% to 2% marketplace. This is a substantial marketplace. The big problem is that the supports aren't there to make the supply available, and retailers, understandably, are a bit nervous about investing in all of this when they're not sure they're going to have the supply in place in the first place. So all these things are starting to come together.

I think what was so valuable about the report of May 2000 is that it named explicitly the need for these kinds of supports to be put in place, and it helped to move this from being seen in some quarters as a niche marketing strategy for some farmers to something that has broader public policy implications.

Of course, many of you know that the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of agriculture announced an agreement at the end of June on a new vision for agriculture. It appears to me that, essentially, the ministers of agriculture across the country have recognized this new reality. They have to design programs that address not just economic risks, as they have in the past, but also environmental and food safety risks. They have to put together an integrated series of program supports that help farmers deal with these three challenges all at the same time. Again IPM and organic are a very big part of that.

Just to highlight this, there are five critical public policy problems in the food and farming sector that are solved by this shift toward IPM and organic farming systems. One is, of course, that it increases consumer confidence in the food supply because a lot of the controversial products and practices that are used in so-called conventional agriculture are not used or are used much more sparingly in IPM and organic farming systems.

Second, it has the potential to shift the government's requirements for emergency funding of farmers over the long term because it will make farmers more self-reliant financially, both because in many cases they're able to obtain premium prices for their crops and also because by making the shift to IPM and organic farming systems they substantially reduce their input costs. Of course, this all affects their net profitability. If farmers' profitability is better, then they will be less dependent on support from the government to deal with a lot of these perturbations in the markets and in the weather.

The third very significant public policy problem that I think will be solved is that it will reduce pollution significantly and will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What's not so recognized is that agriculture is one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in this country, responsible for in the order of 10% of total emissions. These kinds of farming systems do a number of things that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Fourth, it will also contribute to rural community revitalization. If the farm sector is able to make a better living, then that will have many economic spinoffs within rural communities.

Ultimately, I think there's the potential that all of this will reduce administrative and financial pressures on the pesticide registration system. This has been the experience in Europe. As countries in Europe have made the shift to IPM and organic farming systems, it has reduced pressures on the pesticide regulatory system and reduced their actual costs of administering these kinds of systems.

So I think the moment is here. I would urge the committee to continue to press on this, because I think we may now have a more willing voice, particularly through the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of agriculture, to actually move forward on these transition plans.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacRae.

• 1625

Now we'll turn to Angela Rickman, Sierra Club of Canada. Welcome.

Ms. Angela Rickman (Deputy Director, Sierra Club of Canada): Hi. Thank you again for the opportunity to address what has to be our favourite committee. I can't thank you enough for the work you did on the report of May 2000.

We've been working on this issue with a number of other organizations through what is called the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, which is a network of almost 400 different individuals and organizations across Canada that are working on pesticide issues. There are a number of organizations on our steering committee, including the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, the Toronto Environmental Alliance, and the Canadian Labour Congress. We also have public health agencies and representatives of individual farm organizations. We have a wide variety of people who over the past five years have had an opportunity to get together and share knowledge and campaign strategies, and that has been very helpful for them.

But one of the very helpful things for those people was the justification or the credibility that the report this committee issued in May has given to them at their city council level when they look for a bylaw or some restriction on pesticides. That has been a very valuable tool for many of the activists across the country, and I don't think we can thank you enough for that.

The second big tool that has helped people is the decision on Hudson that upheld the right of citizens to look for bylaws that would protect them from pesticide use in their communities. The drawback, as Lia and I'm sure others have mentioned, is that has given us a spotty case-by-case, community-by-community approach to pesticide reduction. While it helps those in communities where they can get a bylaw, in areas where a bylaw isn't acceptable or isn't passed, the children and those who are most vulnerable in those communities are still not adequately protected from pesticide use, particularly cosmetic uses.

As far as the legislation is concerned, we've been waiting years and years for this legislation. We were told by the PMRA four years ago that the legislation was ready, and we've been waiting for it to be introduced. Certainly, reproductive health and reproductive technology are important issues, but we feel that this is also a very important issue. It's one thing to produce children, but it's another to protect them, and we really need to start protecting our kids appropriately and properly.

Among the things in the legislation that we support are open, public, and timely re-evaluation of chemicals that are currently in use, as well as a system that would fast-track less toxic alternatives and bring those to market sooner and replace the more toxic alternatives.

Of course, we must enshrine precaution in any legislation we bring forward. If we wait until we have irrefutable, 100% proof that pesticide A causes damage, it will take years and years, and we may finally get there, but we're doing a gross disservice to all those people who have become sick from being exposed to it in the interim.

In addition, the pesticides must be brought under WHMIS. Workers deserve the same protection from chemicals when used as pesticides as from chemicals when they're not used as pesticides. The fact that a chemical is a pesticide should not exempt it from rules that other toxic chemicals are subject to.

We feel, of course, that cosmetic uses of pesticides must be banned. There's no justification for cosmetic uses where there's no crop being protected. In the long run we would like to see judicious and as little pesticide use as possible, but where there's clearly no excuse to use pesticides on a lawn, that's a use that must be discontinued.

We still have no accurate sales database in Canada of what pesticides are used. The Auditor General pointed out three years ago that we and Slovenia are the only countries in the developed world that don't track their pesticide sales. It's just inexcusable.

• 1630

In a basic society we have to refocus our priorities. We have values. We value certain things. We value the health of our children. We value the cleanliness of our environment. We value clean water. They're not just things we need, they're things that we appreciate, and sometimes those things are worth more than the profits of companies that may be hurt by restricting or banning some of their products.

I think we really need to do a shift in the way we think about legislation and the way we think about protecting our health and our environment and what's really important to us. I think when we recognize that our children are important, and if we really believe our children are important, then we have to really put our money where our mouth is.

This is an issue that is not much worked on. While there are large environmental organizations that work on this in Canada, and health groups and physicians' groups that work on it, by far the people who are working on this issue across the country are moms and dads who are concerned about their kids. They are people who have gotten sick or watched their friends and neighbours get sick from being exposed to chemicals, and those people can't fight a large industry lobby.

Last night in Caledon there was a public forum on pesticide use. They're looking at enacting a bylaw in Caledon. There were 49 speakers; 45 of them were from the industry and four were not. When communities are faced with that sort of overwhelming pressure, most people don't have the ability to fight community by community. We need national legislation that sets in place adequate protection and one level playing field across the country, so that those four people don't have to feel like a lone voice in the wilderness, so that they don't have to go out and fight a large lobby. It's time to get pesticide legislation and adequate amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Canada.

I know you've done a lot of work on this issue and it's greatly appreciated, but we hope you'll continue to press in your various parties to have this legislation introduced as soon as possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Rickman.

We have three more speakers, and then we can start with a quick round of questions before the bells ring. Ms. Smeesters will be followed by Mr. Hepworth and finally by Ms. Sheryl Shour. Ms. Smeesters.

[Translation]

Ms. Édith Smeesters (President, Nature-Action Québec): Good afternoon, Mr. Caccia.

The Chair: Good afternoon.

Ms. Édith Smeesters: I would like to address the committee in French, as this will be easier for me.

I want to thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee on behalf of Nature-Action. I am currently the President of the Coalition pour les alternatives aux pesticides (coalition for pesticide alternatives) which was established a little over a year ago. Ours is a province-wide organization. Obviously, our goal is to reduce pesticide use. However, in the short term, our main objective is to bring about a ban on pesticide use for cosmetic purposes.

We have been greatly assisted in our task recently, among other things by the committee report for which congratulations are in order. This well-structured report provided us with many valid arguments. Often, there is considerable research material to read and the report gave us a summary of the facts that we could refer to when meeting with municipal officials.

Over the past year, we arranged to have translated an action kit put together by the Green Communities Association of Ontario. We adapted the contents to the Quebec reality. We added some things, and deleted others. A total of 13,000 kits were distributed across Quebec with the help of 20 separate groups. An additional 10,000 kits will be distributed next year. This type of campaign has proven to be very successful and has produced a kind of snowball effect.

Seven Quebec municipalities have banned pesticides for cosmetic purposes. Four more are planning to take similar action by January. Obviously, it would be a slow process indeed if we had to wait for Quebec's 1,500 municipalities to come on board. We can't wait 20 years or more for all of the municipalities to see the light. Therefore, like the speakers before me, I believe action is needed at both the provincial and federal levels. People always wonder whether a particular field falls under federal or provincial responsibility. They knock on one door, and are told to go elsewhere. It can be confusing at times.

• 1635

Pesticide registration is a federal responsibility. For example, I'm surprised to see few BT organic pesticides in use. Very few organic pesticides have been registered for use in Canada as compared to the United States. I'm not saying that we should start using organic pesticides everywhere. Prevention is always the best course of action, but as a last resort, organic pesticides are clearly preferable to chemical pesticides.

Exactly what action could the federal government be taking? Surely it could intervene in terms of the products displayed on store shelves. It is unacceptable that stores display toxic products that a child any five or twelve year old can purchase.

There are several critical steps that the federal government could be taking. I attended a meeting of the PMAC in Aylmer in March. A number of sound ideas were proposed. However, like Ms. Wright, I find that the PMAC moves very slowly. All stakeholders were supposed to be represented at this meeting. There were representatives of 10 environmental groups in attendance, along with 90 industry representatives. This was not truly representative of the public's position on the matter.

The federal government could also take steps to enhance awareness. Often, politicians argue that the public isn't ready, but it's the old chicken and egg story. First, the public needs to be educated and the rest will follow. More money needs to be spent on awareness programs. Currently, the industry is producing some advertising in the Montreal area. It has launched a $50,000 campaign and taken out full-page colour advertisements in the newspapers in an attempt to show that people will be unhappy if pesticides are banned. The ads contrast rundown properties with properties where pesticides are used. Happy people with perfectly manicured lawns are shown.

The time has come to debunk these old stereotypes that date back to the 1950s. To accomplish this task, funding is required. A television and radio campaign should be waged. Videos would help a great deal as well, although these are very costly productions which we cannot afford at this time.

As for integrated pest management, a popular concept these days, we discussed this with the PMAC and we have been talking about this in Quebec for a number of years. Many lawn care companies have adopted an integrated approach to pest management. It is a major step forward, but people need to understand that this is not our ultimate goal. Pesticide use has been reduced, but chemical pesticides have yet to be banned. Rather, what we are seeing is green marketing. Who knows if these companies are not spraying the entire lawn? That's what generally happens.

There is a great deal of false advertising about so-called organic approaches. People no longer know what to do anymore. They're waiting for the government take the lead.

That concludes my remarks at this time. I congratulate you on your accomplishments to date. However, there is still much to be done and I would like things to progress more quickly with the PMAC.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Smeesters.

[English]

Mr. Hepworth, please.

Mr. Lorne Hepworth (President, CropLife Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and other witnesses. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Since I last appeared at this committee, as recently as last week actually, our association changed its name from Crop Protection Institute to CropLife Canada, so by way of explanation, I thought I should provide that information for you.

As I surveyed the list of the ten witnesses here before you today and as I've listened today, I have to say I feel a little like the skunk at a garden party. I think it's fair to say that all witnesses here, with the exception of myself, are against pesticides. I may not share that view, but I respect it and I respect their right to represent it.

Having said that, though, I do not believe the committee is well served by such a one-sided process. There are many other equally legitimate views that deserve to be heard in this debate and have a valuable contribution to make in public policy-making.

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr. Hepworth, but we don't need a lecture on how to be well served by anyone. The people who are appearing here today, including you, are the people who asked to appear, and if there is an imbalance, it's because the it was on the side of those who asked to appear.

Please proceed.

Mr. Lorne Hepworth: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chairman.

• 1640

I would go on to say that I think there are some important farm groups that would want to be able to come before you—and some of them are here today—such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the horticultural council, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, AGCare, the Grain and Oilseed Producers—and they've asked that I make that point on their behalf—as well as other associations. I will not belabour it, but I think it's important for the process that the voices be heard, whether the invitation has to be extended or they have to make a point of knowing of the committee meeting.

I will say, Mr. Chairman, that we learned of the committee meeting through one of the members. I learned that I would be a witness here not...I sent a letter in, but I had no reply by way of fax, e-mail, or letter confirming that I would appear. Fortunately, somebody checked the website Friday night to find out that I would be a witness. I don't know whether that's the usual communication process, but maybe others I've mentioned were also not aware of this.

At any rate, I'm not going to belabour it. I just wanted to raise the point.

The Chair: You are right in not belabouring it because your letter to me is dated September 24.

Mr. Lorne Hepworth: Yes, which was last Thursday.

The Chair: Yesterday.

Mr. Lorne Hepworth: Some 16 months ago the committee released its report on pesticides. While there are some recommendations in the report that we can support, we generally found the report seriously flawed. It represented bad science and only told half the story; that is, the benefits of pesticide technology were left unacknowledged.

Many might observe that industry coming out against a report that was not favourable to them is hardly a surprise. After all, they have a vested self-interest. We recognize that. To test our analysis of whether the committee's report was truly flawed from a scientific standpoint, we commissioned the firm CANTOX Health Sciences International to do a scientific assessment of the report. CANTOX is a consulting firm with more than 50 scientists who specialize in toxicology.

This report and our response, Mr. Chairman, have been provided to committee members previously, as well as other MPs, as well as some other interested parties.

What did they find? First that the committee report focused largely on discontinued pesticides, specifically organo-chlorines, rather than concentrating on currently registered pesticides.

Second, the health benefits from pesticide use were largely ignored.

Third, and I quote:

There was limited effort to consider exposure levels in relation to potential health effects. The risk of health effects is a function of both the toxicity of the pesticide and the quantity of the pesticide to which there is exposure. Thus, even the least potent chemical (e.g., water) could cause harm with sufficient exposure

Finally, health effects were generalized.

CANTOX noted that the committee made no attempt to list the pesticides that would be considered as cosmetic and concluded relative to this recommendation that, and I quote again, “in the absence of any genuine effort to conduct risk/benefit analyses, calls into question any objectivity of this report”. “Furthermore”, CANTOX added, “there was no indication in these Chapters”—and one of the chapters they're referring to is under “Other Vulnerable Groups”—“that the Committee or its advisors fully understood the concept of risk or scientific principles in general”.

Pretty strong words, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and not ones that these professionals at CANTOX routinely would use or are prone to using unless absolutely warranted, but words that underline the serious shortcomings of the report that I would suggest to you deserve further and full examination.

So far, Mr. Chairman, I have concentrated on the shortcomings of the committee's report. You know what we are against when it comes to pesticide policy. But you could fairly ask what do we stand for when it comes to an improved regulatory framework for pesticides. Too often we are perceived as being against safeguarding the public and the environment when we criticize reports that are not favourable to the industry, even though the criticisms are based on legitimate scientific shortcomings. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. We want what all Canadians want: safeguarding of the public and the environment.

I want to spend my last few minutes highlighting what we stand for as an industry, as companies, as professionals working in these companies, as moms and dads, as pet owners, and as good neighbours. We stand for protection of human health and the environment. The heart and soul of the research and development of our member companies, the years of testing, the constant goal of all this, is risk reduction, exemplified by the new low-dose, highly targeted, highly biodegradable molecules that are features of today's modern compounds. We stand for the solid second line of defence that is the government's regulatory safety assessment. Our members do not wash their hands of the responsibility of their product once it is sold. Recycling of empty containers and picking up of old, unwanted pesticides are hallmarks of our world-recognized “stewardship first” programs.

• 1645

We stand for a rigorous regulatory system based on science that the public trusts and has confidence in, evidence-based, international peer-reviewed science of the highest standard, not junk science, not political science, but Health Canada's kind of science. Recognizing that science is evolving and is not infallible, we support ongoing research to expand our regulatory scientific knowledge. We stand for the re-evaluation of older pesticides to ensure they measure up to the standards of today's science and safety assessments.

Registrants and regulatory authorities, taking a precautionary approach, have always done a tremendous job of risk assessment and risk management, but the third leg of risk evaluation has often been ignored: risk communication. The public is not well served by this. To have an informed, decision-making public, they need to be apprised of all three areas.

We stand for IPM, integrated pest management, and sustainable practices in both urban and rural settings, right tool, right time, right place, right way. The integrated pest management tool box includes chemicals, biological controls, and the new biotechnology applications for pest management, as well as crop rotation, cultivation techniques, etc.

We stand for a competitive agriculture and improved quality of life through our technologies. This means our farmers having timely access to the latest technologies.

We stand for openness and transparency. I will acknowledge that this is not an easy area for us, to find that balance between protecting valuable and expensive proprietary intellectual property so necessary for ongoing innovation, so-called confidential business information, on the one hand, and the public's need to know on the other. We've taken several steps and will do more, such as the proposed pesticide regulatory decision documents, the pesticide reading room concept, and the MRL database. Also we're working on a submission disclosure process that would be valuable to farmers and the public.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, because we too want a robust regulatory system that safeguards human health and the environment, our response to this committee's report included not only the CANTOX assessment but, equally important, a list of some of these 18 recommendations I've touched on for an improved pesticide regulatory framework. We ask that you give them serious consideration.

Finally, last fall, some 150 days after the committee's report, on behalf of the government, the Minister of Health responded to the committee's report. While we saw the committee's report as having significant shortcomings, we saw the government's response as having a lot right. We found significant alignment in their observations and ours for an improved pesticide regulatory framework. We believe their response can serve as a useful benchmark by which we can all measure progress on improving the pesticide regulatory framework.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hepworth.

The allegations you made in your points 1, 2, and 3 are incorrect. Time doesn't allow me to go into the details, but it is enough to make that point.

As to your remarks regarding risk, two chapters are included in that report, and they were written with the help of two reputable researchers, one of whom is a toxicologist. The chapters themselves are sufficient evidence of how seriously we took risk. Their complexity is evidence also of how much time we devoted to that extremely difficult task.

We now welcome to the floor Sheryl Shour.

Ms. Sheryl Shour: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I have a company that helps people reduce their exposure to chemicals, and as part of that, I have operated a 100% organic lawn care service in the Toronto area since 1993—not IPM, no pesticides ever. I am a member of the pesticide subcommittee of the City of Toronto, which is overseeing the elimination of pesticides on publicly owned land.

I also represent industry, but in this case I represent the Organic Landscape Alliance, which is a network of organic lawn care, arborists, and garden specialists whose mandate is to help educate the public about organic horticulture and to promote that industry. OLA was incorporated only one year ago and we are growing very strong day by day.

• 1650

Organic methods work with nature rather than manipulate it. This difference means that we take a much longer-term view to our turf care and are not motivated by quick-fix solutions. Tending the soil in an ecologically sound manner offers excellent environmental and economic payback to property managers and homeowners.

Maintaining turf organically is in the long run less expensive and less resource intensive, but organic horticulture is a knowledge-based industry. Our OLA members bring to this a wealth of information, an impressive list of credentials, and invaluable practical experience.

On a voluntary basis our members have been going out and trying to educate the public, park staff, and other lawn care companies through a series of curbside breakfasts, trade shows, and annual conferences. However, changing public perceptions about what an urban lawn should look like is going to take a lot more than a toll-free number and some information nights. Extensive commercial marketing, image advertising, and product availability have been largely responsible for the acceptance of the chemical approach. Therefore, widespread acceptance of an organic approach will require the availability of alternative products and the companies with the knowledge to apply them.

Just on an anecdotal note, most OLA members are in fact experiencing growth of upwards of 30% annually. There's a huge potential for new organic products and services. So the problem of managing lawns and gardens without pesticides is not one of economics but only one of will. In fact, one of OLA's greatest challenges right now is keeping up with public demand.

We do need to have the support of a new pest control products act that will accelerate the approval of low-toxicity alternative pest management products and that will encourage research in ecologically sound techniques. A new act could ensure full disclosure of all product ingredients to permit the public to indeed make fully informed decisions.

Mainstream companies have been resistant to change. I understand they are running courses on how to lobby against anti-pesticide bylaws. Changes to the Pest Control Products Act would maybe encourage these commercial lawn care companies to expend their energies instead on the more productive and healthy process of converting their businesses to an organic one.

Organic horticulture is perhaps one of the best examples of an environmentally and economically sustainable industry. Proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act will further this industry not only for the benefit of its members but also for the health and environmental well-being of all Canadians.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This concludes our list of speakers. Now we'll have a round of questioners, possibly with short questions and short answers to accommodate as many as possible.

So far those who have indicated an interest in asking a question are Mr. Savoy, Mr. Herron, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Savoy, a brief question, please.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentations. They were certainly interesting.

I would first of all like to clarify something. In New Brunswick, the potato belt is from Grand Falls to Woodstock, not Edmundston to Grand Falls. I'm from the potato belt. It's my riding. We produce about 12% of the potatoes in Canada.

The second thing I'd like to pass on to Lia, who's from my province, and to Julia, Dr. Khatter, Angela Rickman, and of course Lorne concerns alternatives to pesticides. I have a background in pesticides, having done marketing for a lab that did a lot of work on OC and OP pesticides, including methodology development on new pesticides using different matrices. With regard to alternatives to pesticides—this question I'm certain the chair will take an interest in—one of the options is to look at GMO. I know many of the groups have frowned upon GMO as an alternative, and I want to hear your comments on it.

Personally, if I'm asked to eat an apple—I was eating one earlier—with pesticide residues or that is pesticide-free because of GMO, I would choose the latter.

So I would like to get each of you to comment on that, on the trade-off between GMO and pesticides.

The Chair: Not each one. Just one.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Just one?

The Chair: You may choose just one because we don't have the time.

• 1655

Mr. Andy Savoy: If I have to take one, I would have to take Angela.

The Chair: Angela is not here.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay. Julia.

Are you okay with that?

Ms. Julia Langer: I'm going to defer to Rod, who has done a paper specifically on this. In our push for pesticide reduction we've been told, “Oh, you have to buy into GMOs”, and we in turn ask, with pure curiosity, “Do GMOs reduce pesticides from our agenda?” Rod can answer that question.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Rod.

Mr. Rod MacRae: I've been reviewing a lot of reports that are still limited, I would say, on the relationship between GMO use and how it affects pesticides. The story is decidedly mixed and definitely not as positive as the biotechnology industry would present. The basic problem is that in shifting to GMOs, there's certainly a shift in the kinds of products used, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a reduction in reliance on pesticides in the farming system.

For example, the Canola Council put out a report a few months ago looking at transgenic canola. What came out of that report, and what was particularly highlighted in the public pronouncements about it, was that farmers were reducing pesticide use as measured by reductions in their pesticide bill. But as I looked through the report in much more detail, what became clear is that farmers using Roundup Ready and Liberty Link canola are actually spraying more often than farmers who don't use them. It's just that they're spraying a lot more Roundup. They were substituting some other products and using Roundup instead. Their total reliance on pesticides, in my reading of the report, has actually increased.

The same story plays out when you look at what's going on in the United States. It hasn't been that well studied in Canada aside from canola. In the States, when you actually disaggregate the data that comes out, in a lot of cases GMOs are actually leading to increased pesticide use.

In fact, in the Bt corn story there's a fair bit of evidence that shows that the whole emphasis on Bt corn has caused a lot of growers to spray more than they ever would have in the past. In fact, they never used to spray to control the European corn borer, which is what the Bt targets, and now they're actually spraying more because they have a heightened awareness of Bt that's associated with their use of the Bt crop technology.

In my view, I believe in the long term this current wave of applications is actually going to be detrimental to the adoption of integrated pest management systems because it continues to lock farmers into very limited rotations that require pesticides to maintain.

If you look at what's happening with things like Roundup Ready canola and the difficulties of controlling canola volunteers, and if you look at the potential introduction of Roundup Ready wheat, which is on the horizon with an introduction window of 2003 and 2005, we're going to see that farmers are going to have to actually spray more in order to control some of the consequences of the technology. They will likely end up simplifying their crop rotations, which will also then require additional pesticide spraying to deal with the simplification in the agro-ecosystem.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Please keep your interventions to a minimum.

Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Reed.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to state clearly for the record where we come down on this particular issue. The Progressive Conservative Party, in its platform of last November, called on the government to immediately bring in new pesticides legislation. A component thereof would be to ensure that we evaluate toxicity amongst our most vulnerable populations—children, pregnant women, and the elderly. We have to have full disclosure with regard to formulants and inerts. As well, we need to have an educational initiative brought forth with respect to the cosmetic use of pesticides, particularly the cumulative effect.

[Translation]

First though, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Mr. Levesque-René for his riveting presentation. Thank you, sir.

[English]

I have two questions, very brief ones.

The Chair: One.

Mr. John Herron: One?

• 1700

I understand the Pest Management Advisory Council committee met again with the government in April of last year, and following that meeting the group, which represents environmental groups and industry positions as well, sent a letter to the Minister of Health calling for new legislation.

In a concise statement, what was the advice of the Pest Management Advisory Council to the minister, in terms of the action required?

Ms. Julia Langer: I wasn't there; you were there.

Ms. Édith Smeesters: Can you repeat the question?

Mr. John Herron: Essentially, I guess where I'm trying to lead is that I understand that the Pest Management Advisory Council made a very clear statement that all stakeholders were ready for the government to finally proceed with legislation. They've sent that message in previous years, and over the last three years.

Could you confirm to the committee that the Pest Management Advisory Council has clearly said to the minister, “Go forward with legislation”, so that if I ask a question in the House next week, he can't say he's waiting to hear back from you again?

That's my question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is it yes or no?

[Translation]

Ms. Édith Smeesters: May I speak in French?

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Ms. Édith Smeesters: The PMAC did not issue a very clear statement. It was merely an information meeting and no decision was subsequently announced.

[English]

Ms. Julia Langer: As a member of the Pest Management Advisory Committee, even though I was not at the meeting in April, it has been very clear from the letters that have been sent to the minister that based on the outline of the legislation—legislative amendments that the minister has proposed, which we have not seen in actual legal language, but which we saw in English, as an outline—all of the committee members representing all the stakeholders did indeed say to proceed with amendments.

We haven't seen the draft legislation, and we'd certainly like to see a bill tabled, but yes, that advice has been given.

Mr. John Herron: Is that it?

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Reed, suivi par M. Bigras.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

In my lifetime, we have gone from applying heavy metals to crops—lead and arsenic—to pesticides, which are biodegradable. I say that to try to put it into some perspective as to where we were, where we are now, and where we can go in the future.

I would also say, in defence of farmers, that farmers use as little pesticide as possible because it's input cost and they're not going to waste it. It's more liable to be wasted on an urban lawn than by a farmer.

Just to touch on this GMO debate that's going on, I'll speak for myself. I would sooner eat a cob of GMO corn than one with residual pesticide.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

M. Bigras, followed by Mr. Mills, Mr. Comartin, Madam Redman, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Laliberte, and Madam Kraft Sloan.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you everyone for accepting our invitation. Thank you to Jean-Dominique as well.

First of all, I want to make myself clear. Quebec demands more stringent legislation on pesticides. Of course, we demand that the committee's recommendations be considered immediately. That is why Quebec's Minister of the Environment requested on Friday that this matter be placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. As you know, the Council met several days ago in Manitoba. Therefore, there are clear concerns on this score.

Regarding the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, we need to make one thing clear: there is no justification whatsoever for using domestic pesticides. I think we need to restate this message at every opportunity.

As for other pesticide uses, would you not agree that there is one obvious problem, namely the registration of alternative products? At present, a number of potential substitutes for chemical pesticides should be available on the market. I read recently that there are only 37 organic pesticides available across Canada and sold under 150 different trade names, whereas in the United States, the public can choose from 175 different organic pesticides marketed under 700 different trade names.

• 1705

Would you not agree that we are lagging behind and that this could adversely affect our ability to move in the direction that we need to move, as we have seen clearly here today?

The Chair: Ms. Smeesters.

Ms. Édith Smeesters: As far as lawn care and landscaping is concerned, we can manage very well with the products currently on the market. Yes, we could always have more tools available. As I was saying earlier, more research needs to be carried out. However, the main focus should be prevention.

With respect to agriculture, many people have already demonstrated that organic agriculture is a viable option. However, there are always problems associated with cost, manpower and so forth. Clearly then, we need to take things further.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: The same can be said for the registration process and the delays encountered in the registration of certain organic pesticides.

Ms. Édith Smeesters: Absolutely.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I think two comments should be made, basically. For farmers it's bad business, as Mr. Reed pointed out, to overuse pesticides. For business, it's also bad business to harm the environment, and I think business is starting to realize that more and more. The more emphasis we can put on that and the more we can convince them of that, the better off we're going to be.

The farmers can't really absorb any more costs than what they have already. If they're going to be asked to reduce their use of pesticides, herbicides, or whatever, and it's going to impact their incomes, I think we have to take a serious look at that.

On Mr. Bigras' statement, it seems to me—and I don't know if I'm right or not—if we accepted the science of the U.S. and Europe, rather than always trying to do the science ourselves, we could greatly speed up the process by which we could modernize the use of biodegradable chemicals and stop using some of the old-fashioned ones we're using.

Is that a true statement? Would you agree with that? Could someone comment on that?

Ms. Julia Langer: I think you're very much on the right track. In fact, Canada does have, for instance, an obligation under NAFTA to move toward harmonization. There is a process to do this. I know this is an agenda for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, but it's being done at a bureaucratic level. We'd certainly like to see the highest standard anywhere harmonized in Canada and reflected in our legislation.

It's all fine and well to say, “Yes, we believe in harmonization and doing joint projects”, but let's see it in writing in the bill. The quid pro quo here, in terms of accepting, registration, and packages for alternative lower-risk products, so that we move to lower and lower toxicity and reducing reliance, is to get rid of some of the older chemicals, as you mentioned. I think that is a very sensible approach. Let's see it in writing.

Mr. Bob Mills: Is that not partly turf protection, though? Obviously, if I were in the bureaucracy I would want to protect that and not just simply take the science from somewhere else. Is that not also a problem?

Ms. Julia Langer: The point is that we have to have our own standards of health and safety, but that doesn't mean ignoring what happens elsewhere in the world, either from the registration side or from the deregistration side.

I have a list of 60-odd chemicals that are not registered elsewhere in the world, for whatever reason—groundwater protection, cancer causing, etc.—that are registered in Canada. Let's move on with this process and make the legislation make us move on with this process.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills. You've put a finger on a possible question for tomorrow in the House of Commons.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): To start off, Mr. Chair, because I'm sure you'll only let me have one question, I have just a comment to the CropLife people.

It is interesting that in your summary of recommendations you call on an expert panel of scientists, such as the Royal Society of Canada, to be tasked with the review of the policies. I just saw this today, but you may want to take a look at their enunciation of the precautionary principle and see if you would adopt that as a basis for this legislation, should we ever get it out of this government, which is the second point I want to make.

I just want to get it on record, obviously, that our party is also in favour of this legislation finally coming forth, hopefully in line with the report.

My question to Ms. Shour is with regard to perhaps following up on some of the points Mr. Mills was making on the other pesticides that have been approved in the OECD market and in the U.S. I understand there is a number of new ones that might in fact be acceptable to the organic growers. Am I right in that regard? If so, are you aware of those? How many might be of use to the organic industry?

• 1710

Ms. Sheryl Shour: I think it's more a matter of public perception. In my actual business it's very low input; you don't need a pesticide. It's as easy to pull a weed out of a crack as it is to spray it with a bottle of Roundup. But the public want to see a product, they want to see something in a bottle. I think in that sense, having more tools will make it more real to them.

When I started this business nobody was really doing this. They thought it was very much on the fringe. But now as more and more garden centres, for example, have organic pesticides, nematodes as a biological control, there's an acknowledgement that there are less toxic alternatives. Corn gluten is a perfect example of a product that has been well tested in the United States as a pre-emergent herbicide, but it is in fact a food, a by-product of the corn processing. As far as I understand, there's no headway in fast-tracking that product here. People have been using it, but they use it as a fertilizer or skirt around it. They cannot actually sell it as a pre-emergent herbicide, and it does work.

It certainly would move the industry forward to have more tools available to us. I think there's a need to fast-track these healthier alternatives. There are some essential oils that work phenomenally, but we can't use them, we can't apply them in our business.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Madam Redman, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Laliberte, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

To clarify, Ms. Wright, when you held up the first manual and you were talking about it, was it what is contained in the manual or the fact that what is in the manual is not being followed?

Ms. Jennifer Wright: That's a good question. This is the City of Calgary integrated pest management program, which is being promoted across Canada as a gold standard for the industry and parks and recreation departments everywhere. A lot of parks and recreation departments have chosen to ignore it, but I have heard good discussions about it from across Canada. It's not a bad document, but it leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the person in charge of, in this case, parks and recreation in a city. So if we look at our public spaces, our parks and green spaces where children play, schoolyards, etc....

I think there are some great ideas in IPM, but the reason we choose not to support integrated pest management is that it seems to allow industry—not to be critical of industry—to sell and market a lot more of the products that can be replaced, as we've just heard here, by organic ones like corn gluten. We're not seeing in our city, for example, corn gluten being used anywhere, except in the one park in the city that citizens have managed to claim as a pesticide-free park. The City of Calgary is now holding trials of corn gluten, to use that example, because it's just been brought up as a possible alternative to using pesticide management.

I may not be very clear here, but I think there's a lot of room for interpretation of what integrated pest management is, and I don't think, if we're talking about bylaws and writing things down with legal implications, it's a good way to go, because of the lateral thinking that is possible through the interpretation of this document.

Again, the idea is great. It makes sense if we all sit here and say, well, you know, we don't want to use pesticides, so let's do the best we can not to use pesticides, and if we absolutely have to in an emergency situation, an outbreak of some horrible bug, we'll go with that. Then it sounds great. Essentially, that's what this tends to say, but it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and we know in the city of Calgary we've used thousands of kilograms of herbicide. It's much the same with insecticides, where we could be replacing these products with the ones Ms. Shour is talking about.

For the record, corn gluten is becoming an increasingly popular product in the private lawn care industry in Calgary. As organic lawn care has been discussed here, I just wanted to say, for the record, that we're really happy with private homeowners in Calgary as the number of those giving business to the organic lawn care companies increases. We're seeing these companies being successful.

• 1715

I get a bit frustrated when I hear non-organic lawn care companies promote their products as being safe to homeowners—I hear it a lot, and I'm sure we all have—when in the United States it's completely illegal to say that any pesticide is safe. I get a bit frustrated when we know there are safer alternatives and we've seen them work. As has been discussed here, they are very realistic solutions and not at all more economically unreasonable than the current pesticide practice.

Mrs. Karen Redman: At the risk of taking advantage of the chair's good nature, I'd just say that my own lawn actually was sprayed with something my husband was told was biodegradable, and in his view, that was acceptable. I see Susan Koswan in the audience, and they're doing excellent work that has been helped by funding from Environment Canada in getting homeowners off pesticides and onto user-friendly, more organic methods. So there is a lot of good work being done, and it's great to see that you're sharing that kind of news amongst Canadians from coast to coast.

The Chair: The good-natured chairman recognizes Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I'd like to address my question to Mr. Hepworth, because I feel we have a lot of work to do, if I sense the anger in your voice. There seemed to be a lot of the feeling of anger in there. And I wanted to follow up on what Mr. Comartin said, which struck me as well.

You remarked in your report that the precautionary principle went much too far, and yet it followed the wording adopted by a great number of nations at Rio in 1992 and was also very strongly endorsed by the Royal Society of Canada, whom you choose as an expert panel of scientists in any review of pesticides. There were also your remarks about vulnerable children. The people you promote, CANTOX, talk about the specific chapters dealing with the vulnerability of children and other vulnerable groups, found to be littered with generalizations and unfounded allegations.

I wonder how you reconcile those statements with, for instance, the testimony from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Are we saying that the Royal Society, when they backed their precautionary principle very strongly, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, when they say pesticides are terribly bad for vulnerable populations, especially children and pregnant women, are completely unjustified and unwarranted in their comments? Let's put the committee aside—you say they are biased. But how do you reconcile your statements with comments from prestigious groups such as the Royal Society or the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment?

The Chair: We would be extremely grateful, because the bell has started ringing, if you could give a brief reply.

Mr. Lorne Hepworth: As it relates to the precautionary principle or precautionary approach, what I would say is that we support Health Canada's approach, which I think they would suggest is a precautionary approach. They use evidence-based scientific risk evaluation, and we very much support that. I guess the language we use is “precautionary approach”, though “precautionary principle” is used. I see several definitions for that. I'm not certain I understand what that means, but I think nobody would deny that in its application to children and protecting the children, Health Canada already today, in its precautionary approach, takes into consideration factors such as the child's size, diet, child-specific activities that may lead to increased exposure, putting their hands in their mouths, crawling on a surface that may be contaminated with pesticides.

So I think this evidence-based risk assessment process has served us well, and if there's new science that suggests we should do more, we would support that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I apologize to Mr. Laliberte and Madam Kraft Sloan, but because of the bell we have to conclude.

• 1720

Before thanking you all, let me announce the fact that in room 200 there will be a feast of organic food in buffet form served in the next hour or so. Everybody is invited to attend.

Those of us who are keen on coming back—I assume everybody—will come back right after the vote.

On behalf of the members of the committee and the staff, thank you very much for attending this event. We're extremely grateful to you.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.