HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, May 6, 2002

¼

1810

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Mr. Terry Fenge (Inuit Circumpolar Conference)

The Chair

Mr. Terry Fenge

The Chair

Mr. Terry Fenge

¼

1815

¼

1820

The Chair

Ms. Mary McGrath (Representative, Environmental Defence Canada)

¼

1825

The Chair

Ms. Shauneen Mackay (Volunteer, New Tecumseth Environment Watch)

¼

1830

The Chair

Ms. Marie Archambault (Groupe d'action pour les alternatives aux pesticides)

¼

1835

¼

1840

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Rob Merrifield

¼

1845

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Shauneen Mackay

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Shauneen Mackay

¼

1850

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

Mr. Terry Fenge

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Terry Fenge

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Reg Alcock

¼

1855

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Marie Archambault

½

1900

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Shauneen Mackay

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Shauneen Mackay

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Ms. Marie Archambault

½

1905

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Mary McGrath

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Stephanie Meakin

½

1910

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Stephanie Meakin

½

1915

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Stephanie Meakin

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary McGrath

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

½

1920

Ms. Marie Archambault

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Shauneen Mackay

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Rob Merrifield

½

1925

Ms. Marie Archambault

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Terry Fenge

The Chair

½

1950

The Chair

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg (Coordinator, Women's Healthy Environments Network)

½

1955

The Chair

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

¾

2000

The Chair

Ms. Peggy Land (Physiotherapist, Sierra Club—Chinook Group)

The Chair

Ms. Peggy Land

¾

2005

¾

2010

The Chair

Ms. Peggy Land

The Chair

Ms. Janet May (Pesticide Free Ontario)

¾

2015

¾

2020

The Chair

Ms. Colette Boileau (Coordinator, Organic Landscape Alliance)

¾

2025

The Chair

Ms. Colette Boileau

The Chair

Dr. Av Singh (Extension Coordinator, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada)

¾

2030

¾

2035

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Dominique Lévesque-René (Individual Presentation)

¾

2040

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

¾

2045

Dr. Av Singh

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Av Singh

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Av Singh

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Av Singh

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Av Singh

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Av Singh

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

Ms. Janet May

¾

2050

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Dr. Av Singh

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Dr. Av Singh

¾

2055

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Janet May

The Chair

Ms. Colette Boileau

Ms. Janet May

Ms. Peggy Land

¿

2100

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

The Chair

¿

2105

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

Ms. Peggy Land

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

¿

2110

Ms. Colette Boileau

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Colette Boileau

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Colette Boileau

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Colette Boileau

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Ms. Colette Boileau

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Dr. Av Singh

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Dr. Av Singh

¿

2115

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Dr. Av Singh

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Dr. Av Singh

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

Dr. Av Singh

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Dr. Av Singh

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Janet May

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Janet May

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Janet May

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Janet May

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

¿

2120

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Ms. Janet May

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 075

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, May 6, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¼  (1810)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Committee on Health and our study of pesticides, in preparation for our perhaps amending, or not amending, Bill C-53.

    I'd like to welcome people from these organizations: Inuit Circumpolar Conference; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami of Canada; Environmental Defence Canada; New Tecumseth Environment Watch; and Groupe d'action pour les alternatives aux pesticides. Our last group has withdrawn, so we just have these five groups represented tonight.

    Our usual method of operation is to hear an opening statement from each of our witnesses and then to move to questions from the members.

    I'm sorry about the late start, but I was hoping a few more might turn up. They may drift in as the evening goes on.

    We'll begin tonight with Terry Fenge of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.

    Mr. Terry Fenge (Inuit Circumpolar Conference): Thank you so much.

    I suspect many people are anxious to get to the hockey game tonight. Perhaps that explains some of the difficulties.

    The Chair: Yes, you have big competition.

    Mr. Terry Fenge: My name is Terry Fenge. With me is Stephanie Meakin. Stephanie and I work for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which is the Inuit organization that defends the rights of and represents Inuit on the international stage.

    Inuit reside in the Chukotka region of Russia, Alaska, northern Canada, and Greenland. There are about 155,000 Inuit in the circumpolar world.

    Not only are we here representing ICC, as you've said, but we're also representing ITK, which is the national Inuit organization.

    I have provided members a brief, and I will be short. I have also provided you with some key correspondence between ICC and Minister Rock. I'm hoping you will have it, because I will refer to it as I go through.

    The Chair: Unfortunately, we do not yet have your brief, because it has not yet been translated. We cannot distribute texts that are not in both French and English.

    Mr. Terry Fenge: I see. Thank you. Then I'll read it.

    In the last ten years Inuit have learned much about persistent organic pollutants, including many pesticides and industrial chemicals such as DDT, toxaphene, Lindane, dioxins, ferons, etc. Released into the environment in tropical and temperate countries, these chemicals end up in the Arctic sink by accumulating in the food web, particularly the marine food web.

    As a result of eating marine mammal fats from whales, seals, walrus, and other animals, many Inuit have concentrations of certain POPs in their bodies far in excess of levels found in the south and above the level of concern that's defined by Health Canada.

    Concern about transboundary contaminants in the Arctic is acute, for the issue raises questions of cultural survival as well as environmental protection. I spend a lot of time in the Arctic, and in the tiny communities that I go to people are increasingly informed about the effects on themselves of transboundary contaminants.

    Fortunately, Canada is at the forefront of POPs research. The northern contaminants program, initiated in 1990, in which Inuit and other northern aboriginal peoples participate, has confirmed the extent of the problem and the need for legislative solutions. In 1997 the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, nearly 1,000 pages in length, prepared by the contaminants program, prompted international negotiations to turn off the POPs taps.

    Following years of negotiations, the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe POPs protocol to a convention on long-range transport of atmospheric pollution and the 2001 United Nations Environment Programme global POPs convention both single out the Arctic and single out indigenous peoples because of the issues so well documented by the northern contaminants program.

    The NCP is publishing a second assessment later this year, and that assessment will be particularly important in persuading signatories to the international conventions to ratify them and to implement them. In essence, in the last number of years the Arctic has come to be seen as an indicator region for POPs-related global environmental health.

    From an Inuit perspective, we need the Government of Canada to defend the health and welfare of Inuit on the international stage. Nothing destroys Canada's credibility on this stage better than hypocrisy. This is why our domestic legislation, policy, and research must be of the highest quality and why global principles to which Canada has acceded, such as the precautionary principle, should guide key environmental and public health statutes.

    Bill C-53 is an important bill. Quite clearly, it's a significant improvement over its predecessor. It is most helpful, for example, that the preamble enshrines protection of human health and the environment as a key principle. That the precautionary principle is not included in the bill's preamble is, I think, a missed opportunity, as other witnesses before us have pointed out.

    As a bill dealing with health, it's crucial that Inuit have confidence in the regulatory system it enshrines. I want to give you an example of some of the regulatory concerns Inuit have.

    If I'm correct, Madam Chair, you do not have the correspondence that I wanted to circulate. That's a great shame.

    In 1997 the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report concluded that about 15% to 20% of Inuit women living in southern Baffin Island exceeded the tolerable daily intake of Lindane, a pesticide with unknown but worrying health implications. Lindane was first registered in this country for use in 1938. At the time it was being used in Canada, it was similarly being addressed in the international negotiations I've briefly mentioned.

    Both Stephanie and I attended those negotiations, at the back of the room observing the work done by the Canadian delegation at the front of the room. Both the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were members--sister agencies, if you will--of the Government of Canada's negotiating team in Geneva when these negotiations were taking place. DIAND asked PMRA for the public health assessment of Lindane--key information Canada needed to justify its initial position in the international negotiations that Lindane not be included in the international convention. The request was refused.

    Now, please, appreciate this. You have two federal agencies, if I may use the term broadly, on the same Government of Canada negotiating team unable to exchange information when the substances that were being addressed were actually being negotiated on the floor. It was I think an absurd situation.

    The ICC approached Mr. Rock, the Minister of Health at the time, and he subsequently refused access for us to this information. That of course was the correspondence I was seeking to provide you.

    At this time, 1998, the Minister of Health was in an invidious position. He refused to give Inuit basic information about risks to their health, commenting that this information was proprietary, owned by industry. This is still where the matter stands today. We continue to be unable to get the public health assessment of this substance. In essence, that's why we're appearing before you today.

    We Inuit have no interest whatsoever in obtaining trade secrets or commercially important information. We wouldn't know what to do with it if we got it. But we see absolutely no reason why information about health risks to Inuit and to all Canadians should be withheld.

    We would like to pose a few questions, or perhaps seek to have you answer some of these questions. Will Bill C-53 prevent a repetition of the Lindane incident? Does clause 4 in conjunction with subclauses 42(1) and 42(2) ensure that ICC Canada's experience on Lindane is a thing of the past?

    We of course have been through the bill--it's a lengthy and complex statute--and we're unsure of the answer to the question we pose to you. The answer to this seems to revolve in part around the definition of “confidential business information” that's included in the bill, and the ability of applicants to determine what information is confidential for business purposes and whether and how the public gains access to information on the proposed register.

    Sales data and applications rates, for example, may very well be deemed confidential by an applicant and supported by PMRA, but that's important information for us, because it would give an indication of long-range deposition rates in the Arctic.

    How can we get around this in light of the commendable principles in the preamble to the bill that talk about public health and environmental security? We suggest in essence adding another preamble or clause that would enshrine a basic principle: that the minister shall ensure that the public enjoys easy and timely access to pesticide-related public health information provided to the government by an applicant.

    I don't think we want to rely solely and only on in essence the bureaucratic procedures and processes that are defined and outlined in the bill. We'd like those procedures and processes to be backed up by a basic principle, the principle I just enunciated.

    I think any legal drafter will tell you that the best way to conduct legal drafting is to set out a basic principle and then, if you have to, chip away at it. But we'd like to see this basic principle of public access to health-related information included in the beginning of the bill.

    We applaud the inclusion of vulnerable populations in clause 11, but in the Arctic, interestingly, as the Arctic is a special case here, it is not just seniors, infants, and pregnant women who are at risk, although as elsewhere they assume a disproportionate level of risk. As a result of the long-range transport of POPs to the Arctic and bioaccumulation in the food web followed by the hunting and eating of marine mammals, virtually the whole Inuit population is at risk.

    We would like this disturbing fact to be recognized and referenced as such in the bill. We believe that such a reference would be supported by the Canadian research conducted by the northern contaminants program, research that started in 1990.

    My last point, as I did promise to be brief, does indeed relate to continued research work. Time does not allow me to outline some of the rather good research programs that the Government of Canada has actually put in place.

¼  (1815)  

    I've already mentioned the northern contaminants program. It's an interdepartmental program that brings together four federal agencies, three territorial governments, four indigenous peoples organizations, and is in essence a major success story.

    This year the northern contaminants program is being considered for renewal by ministers. We believe there is a compelling case for the renewal of the program, in light of the information it provides, and will continue to provide, that will be needed to ratify and implement international conventions.

    We're of course fully aware that the northern contaminants program per se is not part of your brief. This is a committee looking at a specific piece of legislation. Nevertheless, it would be most helpful to the cause of improving public health in the north if the committee would support and commend this program when it reports out the bill.

    Thank you very much.

¼  (1820)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fenge.

    Ms. Meakin, did you have a brief to give us?

    Ms. Stephanie Meakin (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami of Canada): No, I'll answer questions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll move on then to Environmental Defence Canada, whose representative is Ms. Mary McGrath. Ms. McGrath.

    Ms. Mary McGrath (Representative, Environmental Defence Canada): Thank you.

    My name is Mary McGrath and I'm with Environmental Defence Canada, formerly known as the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund. We're a national charitable organization and we're happy to be here today to talk to you about Bill C-53.

    As an organization, we represent a number of citizens across Canada who are fighting environmental legal battles in their communities. We also have what we call our right-to-know program, through which we attempt to provide Canadians with the knowledge and tools they need to make informed choices about environment and health.

    Bill C-53, the Pest Control Products Act, is an important piece of legislation that represents a significant improvement over its predecessor. Environmental Defence Canada congratulates the government on introducing this bill. We encourage the government to pass this bill in the interests of the protection of human health and the environment in Canada.

    Bill C-53 offers some important improvements over its predecessor in the area of the public's right to know. However, Environmental Defence Canada believes there is room to further improve the PCPA in the interests of enhancing transparency and public disclosure.

    Due to our expertise in this area, our suggestions for improvement will focus on transparency and public disclosure within the law and the agency that regulates pesticides in Canada. So I'm going to actually repeat some of what Mr. Fenge said.

    Canadians should be informed about pesticides and involved in the decision-making process related to pesticide regulation. As parents, we need to protect our children's health and safety, as they are more vulnerable than we are. As citizens, we need to be able to make informed choices to protect our health and to be aware of alternatives and to democratize discussion on pesticides and health.

    Health care professionals need to make accurate diagnoses and prescribe corresponding treatment in the case of pesticide-induced or pesticide-related sicknesses. Farmers need to be able to make informed choices about the risks and benefits of different pesticides, protect ecosystem integrity and understand alternative pest management options that may be more economic, safer, less polluting, and less toxic.

    Greater public awareness will lead to support for pesticide reduction strategies that are needed to achieve pollution prevention and make the transition to a more sustainable food system.

    Public access to information will encourage the pest management regulatory agency to be more accountable, give absolute priority to the protection of human health and the environment, and will increase public confidence in the PMRA'S activities.

    Canadians currently do not have a strong right to know about the risks posed by pesticides. Public access to information about pesticide safety in the pesticide regulatory process is limited. When a registration, re-evaluation, or other regulatory process is initiated, the public is not notified. The public does not have access to information about the composition of pest control products, including the presence in relative quantities of formulants, contaminants, or products, by-products, or their potential hazards.

    Access to hazard information that is based on information supplied by the pesticide manufacturer or registrant is limited. This information about toxicity, persistence, biocumulative potential, routes of exposure, and environmental fate is what the Pest Management Regulatory Agency uses to make the regulatory decisions.

    The PMRA's risk assessment process itself is not well communicated. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency has not produced any comprehensive documents regarding its risk assessments processes. Information that can be found concerning these processes is difficult to access and understand and often appears contradictory. This lack of clarity is of significant concern, given the well-documented problems with the subjective nature of risk assessment.

    However, the government must be commended on the improvements to the Pest Control Products Act to enhance public involvement in the regulatory process. Before the public can participate meaningfully in this process, however, they need to be sufficiently informed. While Bill C-53 makes great strides in furthering public involvement and disclosure, it continues to create some obstacles to meaningful public access.

    The new PCPA should contain measures that will allow the broadest public disclosure provisions possible. I will briefly outline four major suggestions for inclusion in Bill C-53.

    The first suggestion relates to the definition of confidential business information. The major limitation, in our opinion, in Bill C-53 is the fact that confidential business information remains very broadly defined, especially since it can be deemed as confidential business information by the pesticide registrant itself.

    Environmental Defence Canada has experienced difficulties in accessing information on pesticides under the current framework. A request by us for the risk assessment documents for certain pesticides--only four--launched under the Access to Information Act in November 2001 has involved nine correspondences, seven of which were written. Several modifications were made to our request, which has yet to result in any information.

¼  (1825)  

    The term “confidential business information” should be narrowly defined to encompass only information that would be truly prejudicial to the financial or competitive interests of the person to whom it belongs.

    Our second suggestion pertains to the public register. The electronic public registry is an important advance in this legislation. The content and function of the electronic public registry should be expanded to contain the following information: a database for adverse effects, alternatives to pesticides, pesticide sales, and pesticide use information. Specifically, Bill C-53 should require the tracking of the use of designated pesticides, beginning with those of greatest concern, and this information should be made available to the public as part of the electronic registry.

    Our third suggestion relates to sales data. As a condition of registration, pesticide registrants should provide the PMRA with their sales data on an ongoing basis, data that must at least identify the product and the amount sold as well as the location and date of sale. The pesticide sales inventory should be made available on the electronic public registry.

    Our final suggestion regards the labelling of pesticides. A strong requirement for clear and informative labelling of pest control products should feature prominently in this new act. The minister should require every pest control product to have a descriptive label that describes in plain language and in an appropriate font and colour for persons with visual impairment as much information as possible on the content, impacts on health and the environment, first aid treatment, use and disposal instructions, and where to find further information.

    We've attached to our brief, which I understand you don't have yet, an appendix that provides our specific suggestions on improvements to Bill C-53 on a clause-by-clause basis.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. McGrath.

    From the New Tecumseth Environment Watch we have Shauneen Mackay. Miss Mackay.

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay (Volunteer, New Tecumseth Environment Watch): I'm a volunteer representing the people in our community in the town of New Tecumseth.

    Thirty years ago we were warned that tobacco was bad for our health, but the government wanted to wait for proof. We now have the proof that tobacco is indeed dangerous to our health. My own mother is testimony to that. She smoked two packs of cigarettes a day and died a slow, long, painful death of lung cancer that had developed into brain tumours. As she lay dying, she was afraid because her throat started to close and she constantly panicked at the thought of not being able to breathe.

    We are now being told that pesticides are dangerous to our health. In our town and in communities across Canada, many mothers and fathers are scared and they're sick at the thought of their children and pets being exposed needlessly to all of these poisons every year. Instead of looking forward to the spring with walks and fresh air, many are faced with being enveloped in pesticide sprays.

    I want to make this really clear: this issue is not about agriculture. Farmers are very much aware of the dangers of pesticides. They have to be trained and licensed to make sure they understand the hazards related to pesticide use. I also believe that farmers care a lot about babies and children and would never let them run over their fields after they have sprayed them. I believe they will support the halt of the cosmetic use of pesticides for that very reason.

    This issue is not about loss of jobs. The demand for organic produce and lawn care is a fast-growing and billion-dollar business, with many jobs being created. Loblaws right now--I'm sure you're aware--have their “pesticide-free by 2003” program. Their promotion of organics is already growing rapidly in the stores, although unfortunately a lot of it is imported from the United States. This issue, in my opinion and in our opinion, is about the federal government's responsibility and moral duty to protect its citizens.

    With today's technology we believe it's not going to take 30 years to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that pesticides indeed are hazardous to our health. The bottom line is pesticides kill cells--simply put--and we're all made up of cells. There's talk right now that probably it will only take five or six years to get that proof. We can understand how hard this issue would be if there were no other choices for a beautiful lawn, but there are.

    What we, the people in the town of New Tecumseth, would like the federal government to do is the following.

    Number one, we would like the federal government to take the lead role in abandoning the cosmetic use of pesticides in urban areas. One of the strongest weapons the chemical companies have in their arsenal is the fact that the federal government has approved their products. The chemical companies use this tactic to back up their case at the municipal level to stop the municipalities from getting pesticide bylaws passed. What's really ironic is we've found when we've gone door to door in our community explaining to people about the dangers of pesticide use that they're saying the same thing--well, the government allows it, so it has to be safe. By banning the cosmetic use of pesticides, the government will ensure that our babies, children, and pets will not be exposed to dangerous toxins. That is your duty and your responsibility.

    Number two, we would like the disclosure of inerts, so we really know what we're being exposed to.

    Number three, we would like more emphasis on alternatives, with more support for ecological lawn and garden care businesses.

    We would like this pest control act reviewed every five years.

    The last point is we would like the federal government to get a guarantee from the chemical companies. We believe that when all the information is available and we find out how damaging it has been to the health of Canadians, it could be responsible for billions of dollars to our health care and for class action lawsuits.

¼  (1830)  

    If the chemical companies, whose only responsibility is for a profitable return for their shareholders, continue to say their products are risk-free, you must insist that they obtain approval through an independent underwriter to assess the damage these chemicals could do to the health of Canadians. Every business that sells products has to get public liability coverage.

    We've also seen instances, when chemical companies have been found liable for negligence causing death and injury, that they just go bankrupt. Somehow there must be a way to ensure that the money will be there even if a chemical company does go bankrupt.

    As you can see, we're not asking you to throw people out of work. We're not asking you to take away the livelihood of our agricultural community. All we are saying is there are companies out there selling products and applying products that are hazardous to health--especially for the most vulnerable, our young people. This must be stopped.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mackay.

    Our next speaker will be Marie Archambault. Madam Archambault.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marie Archambault (Groupe d'action pour les alternatives aux pesticides): Good evening. I would like to thank the House of Commons for giving me the opportunity to express my views on Bill C-53.

    The Groupe d'action pour les alternatives aux pesticides was founded by mothers of young children concerned about the risks associated with the excessive and regular use of pesticides for esthetic purposes, especially in the suburbs.

    We conducted an awareness campaign over a vast area which included seven municipalities and a population of approximately 135,000 people. It prompted the mayors to adopt a restrictive by-law for the seven cities.

    We also prepared a brief for hearings by the group looking into the urban use of pesticides, a group that has been mandated to submit recommendations to Quebec's Environment Minister to help develop a new management code.

    Unfortunately, Bill C-53 does not make the distinction between pesticides used for esthetic purposes and others.In fact, an acceptable risk in health and environmental terms is unacceptable in the context of an activity that serves no essential purpose, that is for the most part a preventive measure and intended solely for esthetic purposes. The law must set more stringent standards for such products which, of course, should present no risk. The use of herbicides in urban areas should be limited by the nature of what they do.

    It is good that the legislation contains special provision to protect high-risk groups. However, there is nothing to prove that the new measures, that is, a threshold ten times greater, will be safer.

    For carcinogenic or potentially cancer-causing substances, there is no safe dose.. No acceptable level of exposure can therefore be established. In addition, the so-called safe doses do not take into account the synergetic effects of pesticides in the presence of other products.

    The solvents used in preparation are not assessed in toxicity tests and they themselves are an underestimated source of intrinsic toxicity. Therefore, the harmful effects of pesticides do not necessarily a function of the dosage. That is why I must conclude that the special measures adopted to increase the margin of security for sensitive groups are far from sufficient.

    Moreover, the studies done are extrapolated from animals for humans and do not take into account the complexity of human nature or all the other substances humans may be exposed to daily.

    Toxicity studies are therefore carried out within very limited parameters. Consideration must also be given to the effects of long-term and to the point in time of the exposure of a fetus or a child, both being particularly vulnerable.

    There is growing evidence that chemicals such as herbicides, which are hormone modulators, may have devastating affects even in very low doses.

    There is now enough incriminating studies to apply the precautionary principle, cited by the Supreme Court of Canada, for products whose use is not essential.

    I believe the industry has created a solely profit-oriented need by changing the original purpose of these products, which was to eradicate real infestations. With Through the legislation, we want pesticides to return to their primary function and to be used solely in the case of infestations where no natural and ecological cure exists and where a critical threshold has been achieved.

    Pesticides should therefore be treated the same way as a prescription drug, and be obtained in the same manner. A qualified individual, independent of the industry could fill the prescription after the problem has been evaluated.

    Pesticides used for esthetic purposes should therefore not be available and accessible to the public. It would in fact be difficult to check and monitor practices used and there could be a risk of contamination both for the persons spreading pesticides and for the neighbours.

    Increasingly, pressure groups throughout Canada are demanding legislation restricting the use of pesticides in urban areas. Involuntary exposure is a growing concern among the public and the government must act in this regard.

¼  (1835)  

    The report tabled by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development demonstrates the need to ban the urban use of pesticides. We are extremely disappointed that the Canadian government has not acted on it and we fail to understand why Bill C-53 does not contain more specific measures in view of the many uncertainties surrounding theses products. We think the bill does not go far enough and does not reflect the concerns of Canadians.

    We think it is also very important that the bill provide for disclosure of inert ingredients and that they no longer constitute a production secret. In fact, the public has the fundamental right to know what products they may be exposed to. Nothing can justify ingredients remaininng unknown when the protection of the community is involved.

    There are enough incriminating scientific studies today to warrant the legislator's acting with caution. The evidence is growing and leads us to conclude that the urban use of pesticides must be more tightly controlled. Severe restrictions are therefore becoming necessary.

    We are asking the Canadian government to protect the right of the public and especially children to a healthy environment and to freely enjoy their summers, without having to worry about where they tread or what kind of air they breath. We think the legislator should act in the best interest of children, and not out of purely economic or political interest. We can only point to the absurdity of having to limit our children's activities outside knowing all the while that we cannot protect them from accidental exposure, despite our vigilance.

    As a society, we cannot favour esthetics at the expense of our health and environment. Involuntary accidental exposure directly affects our biological integrity and our fundamental right to freedom of choice.

    Let us pass on to our children respect for nature, for biodiversity and for the environment, and let us hope that the Canadian government will contribute with pride to that legacy.

¼  (1840)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Archambault.

    The witnesses having finished their presentations, we will move to the questioning. We'll begin with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank you for coming in this evening and sharing with us.

    I'd like to start actually with Marie, who just left off. You suggested that tenfold is not good enough. Is this really the fundamental problem here of trust breakdown between PMRA or the Department of Health or the pesticide companies and the public, or do you have scientific proof that you can show us that we're heading down the wrong path?

[Translation]

    Ms. Marie Archambault: The new herbicide classification, including the one done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, put herbicides in category 2B, meaning potentially cancer-causing substances in humans, and we know that there is no safe dose for cancer-causing substances. So even with a threshold ten times greater, there is no assurance of safety. An arbitrary figure of 100 was used at the outset, but that was an arbitrary figure. What is there to say that that figure of 100 was good from the start? It is not by increasing the figure tenfold that things will be safer, especially in the case of cancer-causing substances. The fact that the product is carcinogenic has no bearing on the dosage, but rather on the exposure.

[English]

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: In your own testimony you just suggested that it points towards cancer, but we're not sure, and we're not sure at what rate. So I guess this is where I'm wrestling with this, as a lay person. Can you show a study that proves that the recommended dosages that are approved in Canada are inappropriate and that they cause cancer? And how many cases have we seen of cancer? We're using lots of allegations, but I'm trying to get my hands around the actual facts.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: I said it possibly can.

[Translation]

    I said that it could potentially be carcinogenic; but you cannot take any risk, whatever it is. Even it is acceptable, it is nonetheless risk. The word “risk” is used in Bill C-53. If that term is used, it means there is some risk, and I find it unacceptable that a risk would be taken for purely esthetic reasons. Furthermore, it is a risk being imposed on others who do not want to run that risk.

    I do not know whether I made myself clear earlier when I said that in cases of potentially cancer-causing substances, there is no acceptable dose. So whether you multiply by a factor of 10 or 100, there will nonetheless be some dose leftover for the herbicide to be effective.

    I am not sure if I answered your question.

[English]

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, you did in a way. You're not pointing to any study. You're saying there is potentially a risk. We all understand that.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Yes.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's no different from there potentially being a risk, if we get in an automobile, that we could have an accident. That's a potential risk that sometimes, as a society, we're willing to take.

¼  (1845)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Marie Archambault: In our society, changes with regard to cars would involve much more serious and difficult issues to be solved than withdrawing products that kill dandelions. You also have to look at the meaning of things. This is something we can do quite easily, without causing complete upheaval in our society. This is a social issue, it's a value. When a society places esthetics above all else and take risks to achieve this level of esthetics it is, to my mind, decadent.

    As a mother, I don't want to raise my children by telling them that they cannot walk on the grass because it's covered with chemicals. A lawn has become something dangerous. This is totally absurd. I think that corporations should prove that their product is 100% safe and risk-free.

[English]

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I understand what you're saying. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm a lover of pesticides. I dislike pesticides.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: No, I'm sorry--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: What I'm saying is that we need to base our decisions on some actual scientific studies, if we're going to...

    You're saying that it could cause cancer. Yes, potentially it could, but at what rates and at what applications? These are some of the things we, as committee members, wrestle with when we look at this piece of legislation. Is it safe enough or is it not safe enough?

    I'd like to go on to the other line of questioning. Perhaps Shauneen—

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Could I just add a little something?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, no, because she'll cut me off here in a second.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Okay.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: She's really quite toxic.

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay: You're going to pay for that one.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I know. I've only got one question, so I've got to make it a good one.

    Ms. Mackay, you have a problem with the cosmetic side of pesticide use. I think that's something we look at: if it's not necessary, then why are we doing it? Fair enough. We understand that logic. But you also said that it's not about agriculture; it's not about impacting the agricultural community, who are trained and much safer in applying pesticides. Then you go on to say that companies should guarantee their chemicals are safe. I'm wondering if you had thought that through--and what it would cost the agricultural community if that guarantee had to be on pesticides they are selling right now.

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay: I'm saying that it comes back to the government. They are financially responsible at the end of the day for any impact, because there's enough information to say that pesticides are dangerous.

    One of the things I wanted to add is that a scientist cannot prove pesticides are safe, because they don't know what's in them.

    As far as the liability is concerned, I'm saying the federal government should be very careful in light of what has happened with the tobacco industry. They're dealing with a lot of people's money.

    I think it's something that could happen very easily. We've seen it with breast implants for women, who have gone after chemical companies that are, by then, bankrupt and long gone. I think the federal government has to really look ahead at this issue, because I do believe the impact is going to be quite incredible.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We all want to be safe. But I guess my question was that when we have a registering body in place that is saying they are safe, these kinds of guarantees potentially could impact the agricultural community.

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay: Here's the question, then, because I'm not familiar with what type of insurance liability you have. If somebody puts a product on the market such as a lighting fixture, they have to go through UL or CSA. They have to tell them everything that's in that product to get it approved. It's an independent body.

    I guess the question is, does the government have adequate insurance or liability coverage in the event people come back and say “You knew the dangers of pesticides; you were told. There was enough evidence for you to take the precautionary principle and ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. There was enough information there; therefore you're liable.” Does the government have enough liability insurance to cover potential future lawsuits, or the health care costs?

¼  (1850)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I guess this goes into the area of the PMRA. Do we trust what they do to have the appropriate information to register a product in Canada? Is it safe, or is it not safe? It goes back to the same trust question we had earlier, I believe.

    I think it was Mary who had mentioned as well that farmers are informed. Do you think they're informed enough?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: Did I say farmers were? I said, “Farmers need to be...”.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Need to be more informed?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: They need to be able to make informed choices about the risks and benefits of different pesticides and understand alternative pest management options and the potential risks to their health.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: And you don't think they are?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: I would have to consult specifically with a farmer, but what I would say is farmers need to be able to make informed choices. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Fair enough, but your suggestion is that they're not informed.

    Ms. Mary McGrath: No, no, I didn't say they're not.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I guess that's what I sort of figured.

    Ms. Mary McGrath: I said “Farmers need to be able to make informed choices”. Right now, the way the current act is, we've had problems. You're saying “Do we trust PMRA to have the appropriate information to determine if a product is safe or unsafe?” We could trust the PMRA, but we can never tell what kind of information the PMRA has. We know they get it from industry, but the PMRA won't show us what information they have. To answer the question “Should we trust the PMRA?”--should farmers trust them, should citizens trust them--we would like to, but we'd like them to give us the information, to let us know what the information is.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is the new transparency in the piece of legislation going to alleviate the fears of exposure of information?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: With increased transparency?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes--that's asked for in the new legislation.

    Ms. Mary McGrath: I think it depends on what the information that comes out says. If the Pest Management Regulatory Agency would give us the risk assessments we ask for under the Access to Information Act, we would be able to make a decision about whether or not they would alleviate our fear. Right now there's a culture of fear, because people don't know what is actually going on. There are studies that are saying we need hundred-fold safety factors; there are studies that say we need ten. Scientists have access to certain information and not access to other--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think you've hit it exactly right: there's a culture of fear. And I think all three of you suggested the same sort of thing. I think we're trying to avoid that.

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, you've actually had more than your allotment of time. I'm not vindictive.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I'd like to just go a bit further with this, perhaps at the risk of exposing too much of my own ignorance.

     Mr. Fenge, you made the comment--I think it was similar to what Ms. McGrath was just saying--about the difficulty in accessing the health-related information: not the proprietary information in terms of process, but the health-related information.

    Mr. Terry Fenge: Yes, that's quite so.

    Maybe I can take this opportunity to read just one sentence of Minister Rock's letter to ICC Canada into the record. Clearly that's the name of the game. This is from 1998, and it's a letter from Mr. Rock, obviously when he was Minister of Health, refusing us the information we requested. He said:

    “The tentative data submitted to PMRA at the time of registration, to demonstrate the safety, merit and value of the product, remain the property of the applicant.”

    This is information that relates to the safety of the product. That's what we object to. We hope you, being our representatives, will ensure this situation does not continue.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Is this specific to Lindane?

    Mr. Terry Fenge: This is specific to information we requested about the public health assessment of the pesticide Lindane.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam McGrath, is it the same issue you are raising this morning?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: We requested public health risk assessments for four different pesticides actually. One is on Lindane. We put in the request under federal access to information, because we couldn't get it through talking to people at the PMRA. When you call the PMRA, you cannot actually talk to a person. It was in November 2001. We haven't seen anything yet. We've been forced to modify the request several times, but there is nothing yet.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Could you share with us the text of the requests?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: Sure.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Chair, perhaps we could make the same request.

¼  (1855)  

    The Chair: Ms. McGrath, do you have four requests on four different pesticides, or is it one request?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: It is one request.

    The Chair: Could you share the correspondence with us?

    Mr. Fenge, we will be happy to receive the letters you allude to.

    Once again, before we can distribute them to the members, they have to be translated. Then Mr. Alcock is suggesting we might ask the PMRA for the information.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I don't understand why the health information is not available.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I've noticed the people who've travelled here today to discuss this important issue share many concerns about Bill C-53 which, in their opinion, and regardless of their point of view, does not go far enough in terms of protection, information and transparency.

    First I'd like to address my questions to Ms. Archambault of the Groupe d'action pour les alternatives aux pesticides. You say that unfortunately, Bill C-53 does not make a distinction between pesticides used for esthetic purposes and others, and there is an unacceptable risk to health and the environment in an activity that serves no essential need and that is usually carried out for preventive and purely esthetic reasons. You go on to say that herbicides should simply be banned in urban areas.

    Do you come from an urban area?

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Can you explain the consequences of what you're putting forward today with concrete examples of products that are on the market?

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Do you mean the chemical names of these herbicides?

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: I'm referring to all products which contain 2,4-D, among other things. I'm referring to Killex which contains 2,4-D, to dicamba and mecoprop. Those are the chemical names. There are not many herbicides on the market, there are three. There's one other whose name escapes me. It bears the name of a company. These are herbicides.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When consumers go to stores that sell lawn and garden care products, the sales clerks offer them these products without providing them with information. People go away with these products without being aware of the risks you've referred to.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: These products are sold in stores such as Zellers, Canadian Tire, everywhere. There are no clerks who can explain that there are dangers associated with these products.

    In the brief I prepared, I simply wanted to make a distinction between the value of a product... I'm a pharmacist. When a prescription drug is approved, the decision is always based on the balance between the benefits of the drug and the risks incurred. There is a third person, the physician, who must first assess whether the drug benefits outweigh the risks before deciding whether or not to prescribe it.

    In the case of a herbicide, we must also determine whether there are risks. It's a recognized fact that there are risks since Bill C-53 refers to acceptable risks, but is its value acceptable? Are esthetics an acceptable value? To me, it is not. Therefore the risks outweigh the benefits.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who could act as mediator between those who advocate the use of herbicides and those who don't want them? Are you referring to an ombudsman, someone who could be neutral and who could make a decision?

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Herbicides should be banned outright because they are used solely for esthetic purposes. In the case of insecticides, if the plant is at risk and there is no organic solution, a third party might be able to assess the problem, just as a physician assesses a health problem and decides whether or not to prescribe a drug. A third party would therefore issue a “prescription” for the product in question.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: It is now customary to use herbicides for esthetic purposes. They're commonly used. That's part of the habits of consumers and that's where the risk lies. When did you first observe that these products did present a health hazard?

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Since I've been living in the suburbs, in an area where nine out of ten homeowners spray their lawns three times every summer on average. We are continuously exposed to pesticides from May to September. Children's activities are really restricted and their freedom is truly curtailed.

½  (1900)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much.

    I would like to put a question to the other panelists. Would you agree that measures should be taken by the government to encourage organizations, homeowners or anyone else to not use herbicides and pesticides? This has been done in countries where the trend is to develop a form of agriculture that is far more organic and focused on the environment. Through subsidies or funding, governments encourage those who've made the effort to really change things. Would you be in favour of such a measure here in our country? Anyone of you can answer.

[English]

    Ms. Mary McGrath: Are you talking about specific programs?

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes, for example, through subsidies, the federal government could encourage people who want to make a switch to more organic farming that would meet the needs of sustainable development, as is done in certain European countries. Let us stop copying the tired American model which is really destroying everything on this side of the border.

[English]

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay: I totally agree. That was in my presentation. I think that's an excellent idea. There are great ways to have an organic, beautiful lawn.

    Part of the problem is a monoculture lawn, where you're planting all the same type of grass. If you do, find fescue and perennial ryes in a mix, and just keep your lawn thick and three inches tall. It keeps a lot of the weed seeds away. We're actually showing people in our area how to have a gorgeous, lush lawn without the use of pesticides. Plus we're promoting landscaping for wildlife where people can actually do landscaping.

    I have a friend who does landscaping. He lives in a subdivision. His family can eat on their front lawn, and no one sees them, because he's created a very tiny lot with trees and shrubs and a beautiful, lush boardwalk, with his table out front. So there are many ways of doing it. That type of thing would be a great idea.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: We could make those who pollute pay more.

[English]

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay: I don't want pesticides.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desrochers.

    Now we'll have Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Archambault, the use of pesticides for esthetic purposes is a subject we have heard a lot about. Many people talked to us about it. However, there are some who have different opinions and who say they want to use such products. But once the federal government has assessed the health and environmental risks and declared that the level of risk is completely reasonable, don't you believe that the issue of whether or not these pesticides should be banned should be dealt with at the municipal level, which is closer to the communities involved? People have differing opinions; there are people who are in favour of the use of pesticides for esthetic purposes and others who are not. Don't you think the decision should be made at that level of government?

    We've heard the full spectrum of opinions. Some people are for and others are against. I'd like to hear your views on that.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Having worked with municipalities, I can tell you that the task is a very hard one and requires a great deal of effort. Of course, a lot depends on the current mayor. If the mayor is aware of environmental problems, a bylaw can be adopted. If such is not the case, our chances of success are nil. Other groups in other municipalities with whom we're in contact are really hitting a brick wall. The answer is a formal no. There isn't even a crack in the door to have some bylaw pass without necessarily banning these products. In many municipalities, there are absolutely no regulations in place. Companies can sell their products and spray them even on the windiest days; there is absolutely nothing, no parameters.

    You asked why some think that these products are not always dangerous. Since opinions are divided, the debate rages on. In my experience, I realized when talking to people that most of them are not aware of the possible dangers of pesticides and don't know that a herbicide is in fact a pesticide. When we ask them if they use pesticides at home, they answer no. If we tell someone that the sign on his lawn indicates that access is prohibited, he answers that he did not know that this was a pesticide. When we inform people of the potential risks, people don't want to use these products anymore. I believe that people are blinded by the fact that these products are approved and that the advertising of these companies is often misleading. When companies say that there is no danger because the product is approved by the government, it gives people a false sense of security.

    I formally request a ban and that's why I'm here today. Otherwise, we have to do a lot of public awareness work and tell people exactly what the facts are so that their choice is informed and that they are not mislead. Therefore, misleading advertising should not be allowed on the one hand, and on the other hand, we have to speak out more about the possible risks.

½  (1905)  

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: In other words, you believe that there is room for a lot of education?

    Ms. Marie Archambault: A great deal more.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Ms. McGrath, at one point you referred to confidential business information. You said that that should be more clearly defined. What would your definition be?

[English]

    Ms. Mary McGrath: I am sorry, the...

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: You mentioned at one point that confidential business information should be defined in the law. What is your definition?

    Ms. Mary McGrath: Do you mean of confidential business information?

    Mr. Jannot Castonguay: Yes.

    Ms. Mary McGrath: I would say, and this is just off the cuff, confidential business information would be any information that would prejudice the financial or competitive interests of the person to whom it belongs. So that does not include health information. The public interest should outweigh confidential business information. There's obviously going to be a process to determine that. But if there is a significant public health interest, this should outweigh the potential prejudice to the financial or competitive interests of the person to whom that information belongs.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    First, I have to apologize for missing most of your presentation. I'm going to risk asking a question, which you may have previously addressed. It relates directly to Mr. Merrifield's argument about needing to demonstrate over and over again the link between any pesticide and documented evidence of ill health and even death.

    I think we need to find a way to put an end to that kind of argument, that we're being overly emotional or wildly speculative on these matters. I guess I want to hear from anyone who is prepared to give some personal testimony or evidence or documentation to suggest that we have the evidence and the personal experience to be able to say there is a risk and this is when government must play a role, maybe starting with Stephanie and Terry from the point of view of the impact of buildup of pesticides on the Inuit people.

    The Chair: Perhaps I may just interject here, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. A piece of information you did miss was the buildup of the effects of Lindane well above accepted levels, or normal levels, or something. I wish you'd go over that again. In the case of that particular thing, do you also have evidence of disease in that population that was examined, where they found these high levels?

    Ms. Stephanie Meakin: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question. I hope to provide some information that may be of interest to Mr. Merrifield as well.

    A great deal of effort has gone in over the last ten years to the northern contaminants program and a bigger picture. This information feeds into an eight-country program sponsored under the Arctic Council called the Arctic monitoring and assessment program. We're actually looking at data from eight countries.

     The Arctic provides an interesting example because what you have is body burden levels, far exceeding even those in the south, of exposures of various chemicals, not only pesticides, but industrial by-products as well--PCBs, dioxins, furans. Most of the chemicals we find in the breast milk and blood of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples--mainly the Inuit because of the marine food web and the consumption of those foods--are often 15 to 20 times above the Canadian established tolerable daily intake set by Health Canada. This raises concerns. When this information gets published and is provided to communities, of course, there is a concern. Their first question is “What does it mean to me--am I going to die of cancer?”

    Of course when we are in international negotiations, this is what industry will say too. Give me the definitive, qualitative, and quantitative information that links that exposure to that effect. We can't do that, because we live in a world where we are exposed. There are confounding factors. We're exposed to so many different things. The problem with pesticides and chemicals is usually we're exposed to a cocktail or a mixture. When we do an analysis of a blood sample on an Inuit, we not only find toxaphene, Lindane, DDT, PCBs, we also find many things. When you try to tease out or tickle out the information of a fact... I can look up epidemiological data from occupational studies where there has been an accidental spill in a plant and then they monitor the workers. That's an exposure to one chemical. I can glean some information from that. When we look at the animal data, it's exposures to one chemical.

    The northern contaminants program has actually invested a great deal of time, energy, and money into exactly that--what is the effect. We have a very solid body of scientific evidence, and if you want weight of evidence, I will provide, at the pleasure of the committee, both the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Report and the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report. These were both published in 1998. The new ones are actually due in 2002, where the focus of the last five years has been mainly on the health effects, based on strong evidence from scientists such as Jacobson and Jacobson. They did cohort studies in aboriginal populations surrounding Lake Michigan and found high industrial concentrations in their bodies--definitive links to cognitive disabilities in the children. The committee has also heard about the Mexican studies.

    We have studies from the Faroe Islands and Seychelle Islands. Our own Eric Dewailly at the University of Laval is one of the world's leaders in actually trying to look at some of the epidemiological studies. The problem is we can't expose a person to these chemicals and see what happens, but we can look at cancer data registries. We can look at the Ontario farm report and we can see the instances of cancers in farm families. We can look at the increased incidences of childhood leukemias from 25 years ago.

    This is my question to you. Is there enough? I don't think for some there will ever be enough. There wasn't enough for lead. There wasn't enough for many of the things we've worked on over the last 20 or 25 years. The Arctic is a good example. We are, through this program, starting to determine some of those very questions. We've actually shown very significant and definitive links between PCB exposures and incidences of infection rates. We're even showing that immunizations are not as effective, so the immune system is being affected.

    I go back to a question about exposure and limits and ten times, a hundred times. From a pharmaceutical perspective, when you take a drug, usually it's parts per billion that they're giving you, which is the actual active ingredient that's going to affect your body. It's so specific. It's parts per billion, parts per trillion. So what are the safe exposures? We're talking about parts per millions, parts per thousands. Parts per trillions is for the drugs we take. So why would pesticides be any different in our exposure rates? When we talk about safe rates, let's really look at it.

    I could go on.

½  (1910)  

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock had a question he wanted to piggyback.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I want to follow on this, because the Mexican study, you're right, has been mentioned a number of times. I've heard of the data from the Arctic and I understand the concentration in, I think you call it, the food web. Have there been studies of kids in downtown Toronto? It's cosmetic pesticides that we're talking about banning here. Are these chemicals turning up in the tissues of children in Hamilton? Why are we going so far away for evidence of contamination?

    Ms. Stephanie Meakin: I'll start. Someone else may want to help me out here.

    The reason levels are higher in the Arctic than even around Toronto or the Great Lakes is because of the bioaccumulation factor for Inuit consuming marine mammal fat. When you take your child to the pediatrician, first of all, many of the pediatricians aren't trained in the potential effects or outcomes of exposure to chemicals. Second, we don't take our children and have their blood screened for toxic levels. We can't, and I don't know anyone who does. I'm a farmer. I'd love to have my kids screened, but I don't know where to do that.

½  (1915)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: But somebody did do that in the Arctic study. Somebody did do that in this Mexican study to obtain the data that is cited. Has there never been a study done of children in an urban centre?

    Ms. Stephanie Meakin: Well, the Jacobson and Jacobson study is a very definitive cohort study done in Michigan. Both the Seychelles and the Faroe Islands have long-term studies of individuals where they've monitored them over a period of time. There's a study out in New Zealand. Again, there are occupational exposure studies of large-scale accidents such as adoxin poisoning in vegetable oil in Japan, where they've monitored children and seen the incidence of cancer rates or the diseases to be directly related to that exposure.

    Again, what we have to remember is that time of exposure is critical. You may be exposed all your life as a farmer from 18 to 79, but the effect may have been caused when your mother was exposed on that spraying day while you were in utero. That's what we're starting to see from some of the technical, scientific, definitive weight of evidence, that time of exposure is critical to some of these outcomes. It's very hard to prove epidemiologically, but I have animal data to back it up. We know.

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: In addition to all those studies, we also have in the cases, for example, of Lindane and Dursban enough international data to make many countries decide to take action--except for Canada. I wouldn't mind asking Mary... You have put in requests for information on risk assessment pertaining to Lindane, I think you said. I'd like to know the other three, how long you've had those requests in, and what you've heard. It is something that has come up at committee before, and we haven't had any satisfactory responses from the PMRA.

    Ms. Mary McGrath: I can get you the names. I'm going to submit the document we sent to the PMRA that has the names. I can't tell you off the top of my head, but I can go through the whole process of what we've gone through with the PMRA.

    Basically, what we do is we submit a request for a specific pesticide, and then they tell us we have to tell them all the products we want where that pesticide is the active ingredient. They ask us very specific questions. Then we submit again with the answer to their questions. It seems that if one word doesn't qualify the question properly, they come back and say the question needs to be different--you need to be more specific. So we ask them, how can we be specific when we don't know what we're asking for? Then we'll submit another request, and they'll come back and say “We need you to tell us exactly the names of the products you want”.

    As I said, we've had seven pieces of written correspondence, and I have copies, and two communications on the phone, and the last response we got was that they needed 60 days or something to be able to get the information to us. That was at the beginning of April, so we have yet to hear back. This has just been an ongoing back and forth, back and forth.

    As I said, if you call the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, you can't actually get through to speak to anybody. The first-line officers will not let you speak with anyone. I even demanded to speak with someone, and they wouldn't let me speak with anyone. So that's the type of runaround you receive. That's what we've experienced.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    It's Madam Thibeault's turn.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

    Ms. Mackay and Ms. Archambault, I share your concerns about the esthetic use of all these highly toxic products.

    From the outset of our study, we heard on several occasions that pesticides were extremely difficult to handle. For instance, let's say your neighbour goes to Canadian Tire, as you mentioned earlier, and buys a product. There's no guarantee he will read the instructions. He may spray products that are more toxic than anticipated. We were told that only certain specialized companies should buy and spray these products. If that were the case, would you be more in favour of keeping these products on the market? I don't think that's what you're going to say, but I'd like to hear your opinion, especially since Ms. Archambault talked about people who could monitor this usage. Do you think such companies would be capable of providing that service?

½  (1920)  

    Ms. Marie Archambault: Yes, but here again, they would have to be guided by a code of management that is highly detailed. Moreover, that framework would have to be respected and there would have to be control methods so that these people do things correctly. It's all very well to have a code of management, but it has to be supervised. These would be companies that could spray only when absolutely necessary to do so. I stress in cases where it's absolutely necessary and not for purely esthetic purposes. For instance, there's really no valid reason to use herbicides. There is no place where it's truly necessary to use them. If there's an infestation and pesticides have to be used because the survival of a plant is in danger, I would agree that it be used then, but only under strict conditions following very strict rules.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Okay.

    Ms. Mackay, did you want to make a comment?

[English]

    Ms. Shauneen Mackay: I totally disagree. I think that we have to get completely away. Once you start regulating and you have to focus on regulating things like that, I believe it gets cost-prohibitive. How can you ever control it? You can't see what people do at night. People stockpile it at home. You don't know where it goes in the garbage when they get too much right now. It's really bad right now.

    Part of the reason that I'm here too is that with pesticide exposure, people get flu-like symptoms. And quite often, with veterinarians, if you take your pet to a veterinarian, the first question they'll ask is whether anyone has been spraying their lawn. But when you take your child to a doctor, and they have flu-like symptoms, the doctor treats them for the flu. They don't ask if they've been exposed to pesticides.

    So we feel that the best way is organic. You can have a gorgeous lawn. You can have a beautiful garden with no poisons around at all.

    What happened last summer is that in our neighbourhood... I'm not sure if all of you are in neighbourhoods where they come in and spray like crazy. There are little children and babies out playing and these landscape companies come in and it's better for them to do six to ten homes; they're not going to come in and do one very carefully. They have a time limit and they come in and spray. These children become really sick. There were about six or eight of them in our neighbourhood who became sick, not that day, but about two days later. They had similar things on their arms. It was absolutely upsetting, which is why I'm here.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Thibeault.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, I have one quick question and maybe a comment at the same time.

    Madam Archambault has suggested... You're a pharmacist, I understand, by trade. The thing that struck me in your testimony was you suggested that drug safety is not an issue, that you deal as a pharmacist with drugs all the time and you prescribe those with great confidence.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: I didn't say drug safety wasn't important. I said the value of a drug has to be weighed in terms of the risk versus the benefit.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Good.

    Ms. Marie Archambault: That's totally different.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, and I agree with that. It's similar with pesticides.

    What struck me about your testimony is some of the information I've had coming across my desk in the last couple of months with regard to drug safety where we know that just from benzene drugs alone we have 10,000 deaths in Canada per year.

½  (1925)  

    Ms. Marie Archambault: For which drug?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Benzene drugs. And I'm saying this is very regulated; this has the Department of Health standards on it. We're seeing tremendous numbers of deaths from an inappropriate use of a product.

    So I'm relating that now to pesticides and with your testimony suggesting we know that they're harmful--absolutely, we do--and that's why they're regulated; that's why we have labels with many warnings on them; that's why we have to protect ourselves when we use them. So what we're trying to do is weigh the benefits from the risk and eliminate the risk wherever possible.

    I would agree with that. I'm just suggesting to you that we must be very careful to use the whole area of drugs and the risks and benefits as a model. I would suggest that we have much more work to do on the drugs safety side of Canadian health than we do even on pesticides.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    I think Mr. Fenge wants to make a comment on one of Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' questions.

    Do you remember what that was, Mr. Fenge?

    Mr. Terry Fenge: Yes. You're raising the issue, and you did miss some of the testimony earlier. I don't want to spend too much time on this.

    We hadn't met before we came here, by the way, even though we're basically saying very similar things. We can give you horror stories, and I think we have, about access to information or inaccess to information. We're doing that for a purpose.

    The key question, I think, that faces you is not what the past experience has been, but rather whether the provisions in the bill in front of you are going to ensure that those horror stories don't take place again. So I think the key question that perhaps members of Parliament should be asking is this: Are the clauses in the mandate provision paragraph 4(2)(c) and the other clauses that set up the registry and the procedures that are outlined in the bill ensuring that the bad illustrations that we have provided for you don't happen again?

    I've said in our brief that ICC is unsure of the answer to this question, but we would hope very much that by the end of the debate, by the time you've heard all the witnesses, you will be sure that the inappropriate procedures like the Lindane experience that we have outlined and the four access-to-information requests that you have outlined will not be repeated. I think we're all trying to get around that.

    The Chair: My guess is that one of the reasons the PMRA officials are hesitating is because it has not been made really clear to them where the line is between the public interest in health protection and the protection of business information. So I think Ms. McGrath nailed it in her presentation when she said that certain kinds of business information are too broadly defined. That is leaving the officials struggling with what they can release and what they can't.

    It seems to me it's up to us. You have raised this problem and you're going to illustrate it to us further by this submission of correspondence when you could not get the answers you felt you needed around health issues. Armed with that, we will pursue that whole aspect of the bill, because we can't expect officials to do a good job for the public if in fact the politicians have not made the sticky political decision, which is where should that line be between protecting business and protecting health and people?

    I want to thank you very much for coming. Thank you very much for your preparation, for your attendance. We might call you again to clarify some things. You will submit to the clerk what you offered, I hope. Thank you.

    We will have to have a little break, because we have another panel coming in. We will recess for 20 minutes.

½  (1929)  

---

½  (1949)  

½  (1950)  

    The Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'll proceed to part two of our meeting on Bill C-53.

    For the next hour and a half we have representatives from the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, Organic Landscape Alliance, Pesticide Free Ontario, Sierra Club-Chinook Group, and Women's Healthy Environments Network. As an individual, we have Mr. Lévesque-René.

    Let's reverse things today and start with the Women's Healthy Environments Network with Ms. Rosenberg, who is the coordinator. Ms. Rosenberg.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg (Coordinator, Women's Healthy Environments Network): My name is Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg. I'm a mother of two and a grandmother of three. I happen to be a fortunate daughter of a 90-year-old mother. I know what's in the bodies of my three beautiful little granddaughters. I know what's in the body of my mom, because of her age and when she was born. I know what's in my body. I won't tell you my age, but I'm going to receive my old age pension this year.

    I've been around these issues for quite some time. I'm an educator. I'm with the Women's Healthy Environments Network. We were requested to come here on behalf of the National Network on Environments and Women's Health, Centres of Excellence for Women's Health, at York University, of which WHEN, Women's Healthy Environments Network, is a partner.

    I wanted to say that WHEN is one of the producers of the film Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer. Some of you may have seen the film. It deals with pesticides, organic chlorines, and a number of other contaminants that contribute to breast cancer. We are currently making a new film on children's health and the environment. Jean-Dominique and his family will be featured in it.

    Our work is primarily in education. We teach courses. We do training the trainer workshops. We try to do education in a way that helps people not only understand the issues, but take action in their own lives.

    The film Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer has been very widely used now. It came out in 1997 and was presented in English at the first world conference on breast cancer in Kingston, Ontario. It was subsequently presented in French at the second conference in Ottawa in 1999. It has since been translated into Spanish, Bahasa Indonesian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Hebrew, Serbian-Croatian, and, possibly soon, Japanese. It's being widely used all over the world to help people understand what some of the issues are and what some of the actions are they might take.

    I wanted to quote from what we have as the terminology for xeno-estrogens. Many pesticides and organic chlorines are xeno- or foreign estrogens. Devra Lee Davis explains the impact on women's bodies in the filmExposure.

    Xeno is the Greek word for “stranger” or “foreign” estrogens. They're hormone mimickers found in many pesticides, industrial solvents, PCBs, and other chemicals. They tend to dissolve in fat, particularly animal fat. Zeno estrogens either behave like direct-acting hormones and cause the body to increase its production of estrogen, or they may work directly by damaging the DNA. In other words, they work through the hormones or through the genes. The bad estrogen, or estradiol, is found in organic chlorines, pesticides, plastics, fuels, and some pharmaceuticals.

    I only wanted to lay out the definition. I'm sure you've heard a lot about pesticides during your hearings. There's probably very little that I can add to the actual issues around pesticides. I'm sure someone from the Canadian Cancer Society has come and presented some information on the precautionary principle. No?

    The Chair: We've heard a lot about the precautionary principle, but we haven't heard from the Canadian Cancer Society.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: Okay. I have some material from them that I'd be very happy to share with you, as well.

    I think this is very positive. Those of us who have been working in the primary prevention of cancer for a number of years have been waiting for the cancer establishment to make statements about the precautionary principle with regard to a lot of contaminants. It so happens they've now come out with a very strong statement on the precautionary principle around pesticides, which I will share with you.

    I know we have five minutes. Could you give me a two-minute signal when I have two minutes left to end? I have a bunch of notes.

½  (1955)  

    The Chair: You've used up four minutes. What we really want to know is what you want us to do with this bill. Where do you want it changed?

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: Right. I did go over the mandate. I did read the primary objective, which is admirable. I had trouble with the part that says “support sustainable development designed to enable the needs of the present to be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. But what is actually happening.... I want to address this as well.

    Paragraph 4(2)(b) says “seek to minimize health and environmental risks”. I would say “seek to avoid” or “prevent”. We need to use stronger language.

    Paragraph 4(2)(d) says “ensure that only those pest control products that are determined to be of acceptable value are approved for use in Canada”. Acceptable to whom? Who are they acceptable to? I would suggest that they are not acceptable to a whole lot of people.

    Then in paragraph 7(7)(a), it says “apply a scientifically-based approach” in relation to health risks. It talks about “pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors”, and talks about a threshold effect later on. I don't know how one can talk about a threshold effect when one is talking about the impacts on eggs, sperm, fetuses, growing children, and rapidly multiplying and developing cells.

    In the case of breast cancer, for example, the impacts can be on the eggs and the sperm directly, and it can be directly in the fetus. It can be when a little girl's breasts are developing in pre-puberty. Similar things are happening in males. There are the same kinds of rates of testicular cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer. It's 8% in society. We really need to look at the impacts at stages when cells are rapidly multiplying.

    Risk assessment, the way it's designed, is most problematic. These windows of vulnerability we talk about are not only concerned with the dose making the poison, but with the timing. It's that timing during stages of development, the exquisite periods in the development of a baby girl or a baby boy, for example.

    When a baby girl is being developed, all her eggs are developed at the same time, in the first trimester of pregnancy. Those are all the eggs she's ever going to have. If those eggs are affected or damaged, all her offspring can have something wrong with them. You'll never know why because there isn't a flag waving around saying this is the problem that was caused by such and such a contaminant.

    I'd like to very quickly talk about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. It says that pesticides are toxic, but they can be used without posing a significant risk to health or the environment, if safe handling and application procedures are followed. Given what we're talking about with these windows of vulnerability, there is always going to be a time when those windows are being opened to exposure for children who are developing. There was a whole conference on sperm and damage to sperm and cancer in Montreal a year ago last summer. There's a lot of literature on that.

    The Canadian Cancer Society says children are at special risk for leukemia, brain cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft tissue, sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease. Routes of exposure are inhalation, oral, and skin. Occupational versus casual--farmers, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, other applicators. You know the precautionary principle. I won't repeat what it is.

    In the Canadian Cancer Society's decision framework, they asked if there was evidence for harm. The answer was yes. What is the strength of the evidence? Suggestive. Are there clear health benefits? No, to the individual or population. Do alternatives exist? Yes. Are there important economic benefits? No. Are avoidance mechanisms effective? Unlikely.

    The Canadian Cancer Society's perspective is that people should not be exposed to known carcinogens without very good reason. Where the purpose is important, alternatives should be developed. Are dandelion-free lawns and parks a good enough reason to use a possible carcinogenic agent?

    This is quite amazing. This was Dr. Barbara Whylie in a presentation she did at the Town of Caledon's pesticide symposium in February. She said:

    “The Canadian Cancer Society does not support the use of carcinogenic chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes. The Canadian Cancer Society accepts convincing evidence that some commonly used pesticides cause cancer. We call for a ban on the use for cosmetic purposes of chemicals that have been identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization as known or probable carcinogens.”

¾  (2000)  

    They have defined ten as known or probable carcinogens, but how many did they test? Out of the thousands of chemicals, how many did they test? They found ten, so there are questions to be asked.

    Their decision framework was is there evidence for harm; what's the strength of the evidence; are there clear health benefits to the individual and population; are there important economic benefits; are there alternative options; and what avoidance mechanisms exist?

    So I think that given the fact that the Canadian Cancer Society has come out with these kinds of statements, we would echo that urge for the precautionary principle.

    Some of us call the notion of risk assessment and risk management an oxymoron, because it's based on the impacts on a 35-year-old male working in a factory who is in pretty good health, and you can't apply those standards to rapidly developing cells and those windows of vulnerability I was talking about.

    I'll close by saying that I'm quite glad to be here. I haven't heard most of what other people have been saying, but I would imagine that you will hear a lot that will help you to make some decisions not based only on a scientific method and a strictly scientific analysis, but really looking at how we can observe the precautionary principle in its strongest possible applications.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Rosenberg.

    We'll next hear from the Sierra Club. Their representative is Peggy Land.

    Ms. Peggy Land (Physiotherapist, Sierra Club—Chinook Group): Thank you very much.

    I'm here to take the place of Jennifer Wright. Jennifer was snowed in in Calgary and she called me today at my place of work. Ironically, we're both physiotherapists, and so is Dorothy.

    Physiotherapists work very hard to put people back together again, and it's very frustrating at times. And when we have a chance to identify an impact on public health that could have a preventative effect, it's really great. So some of us have really seized on this.

    I'd like to read to you, if you could bear with me, Jennifer's paper, which I think is very good. She is actually representing two different groups, the Chinook Group--

    The Chair: What is happening tonight, it seems to me, is people are telling us things about the people and the clubs and all that sort of thing, and then their time is gone. So could you get to the actual substance of her comments on the bill itself? Thank you.

    Ms. Peggy Land: Yes, of course.

    Her two major recommendations are, not surprisingly, that pesticide use for cosmetic and aesthetic purposes must be banned in Canada, and that the precautionary principle must be considered in all aspects of this bill.

    Now, one thing I would like to tell you about Jennifer is that she's expecting her first child. So just picture me twenty years ago, out to here, if you would, please. Jennifer was willing to fly here and make this presentation, so just bear with me, because I'd like to tell you in her words what this means to her.

    Her first question: Does the federal government have a right to tell people something is safe when used as directed when, number one, pesticides are rarely, if ever, applied with the precautions as directed, and number two, we have no idea what the long-term health effects will be of any pesticide on the market.

    She says that children's health should be the priority, and Bill C-53 must implement the precautionary principle.

    Now, Jennifer comes from Calgary, where, astoundingly to us in Ottawa, the dandelion is considered a noxious weed. She says:

    “We actually have a bylaw prohibiting dandelions. Are you all aware that many Canadians and most Europeans consider the dandelion a nutritious food source? The fact that this bright little herb is on the city's noxious weed list is the major reason that our city is drenched in herbicides every year. They even spray the schoolyards and natural areas.”

    “Years of lobbying for pesticide reduction with thousands of other Calgarians has produced minimal results. The city still uses herbicides in parks, green spaces and schoolyards. All efforts to have the dandelion removed from the noxious weed list have failed. So the spraying continues. Our groups continue to educate Calgarians. However, it's a long slow process with no government help.”

    “The battle between the municipal and federal governments to avoid responsibility for cosmetic pesticide use must end. We need leadership from the minister, not just 'If your municipalities want to ban pesticides, then so be it.' They should ban cosmetic use, period.”

    “Sixteen weeks ago I found a child growing inside me, and with this discovery came extreme happiness tinged with some concern. How can I protect my child from a world where air, food, water and my very being are contaminated with synthetic chemicals?”

    “I feel my right to life and security of person is being infringed upon when I am forced to breathe in pesticides that have never been tested for their long-term cumulative effects on me or their short-term effects on my developing child.”

    “I recently attended a conference where Health Canada researcher Dr. Tye Arbuckle described how she had found 2,4-D residues in the semen of Ontario farmers! That study was published in 1999. Canadians are still being told that 2,4-D is safe. How safe do you feel around a pesticide that can invade human semen?”

    “Dr. Arbuckle's recent research on Ontario farmers indicates that paternal exposures to atrazine, glyphosate, 2,4-D and organophosphates are associated with increased risk of pre-term delivery. Spontaneous abortions at less than 20 weeks were 20% to 40% higher when there was maternal exposure to glyphosate, atrazine, carbaryl, and 2,4-D prior to conception.”

    “In Calgary the lawn care companies and the city routinely inform people that glyphosate and 2,4-D are perfectly safe. 2,4-D is one of the most commonly used herbicides in this country. In Alberta it has been measured, along with mecoprop and dicamba, in the rainfall! Dr. Bernie Hills, a scientist in Lethbridge, Alberta, has been looking for pesticides in the rain in many separate Alberta locations. In 2000 he found the above herbicides in 18 separate locations.”

    “These pesticides that turn up in semen, breast milk, rain water, and many lakes and rivers are all registered by Health Canada. Is that supposed to make me feel safe regarding their possible health effects on my unborn child?”

¾  (2005)  

    Is 2,4-D safe to use as directed? If it is safe to use as directed, then why does the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, which has compiled all the data it could find on 2,4-D, recommend that “as directed” means that the applicator should wear--I'll show you, just to make my point here--the chemically impervious suit, the goggles, the rubber gloves, the rubber boots, and the respirator? All these things must be worn to spray a dandelion. What are we coming to when we must protect ourselves to this extent to kill a dandelion that's not doing anybody any harm?

    It has also been known that dioxins are unavoidable contaminants in the manufacture of 2,4-D, although we have been told this is no longer the case. But since it certainly has been the case, can anyone tell us that every batch of 2,4-D is screened for the presence of dioxins still in 2,4-D? We know it only takes minute amounts of dioxin in utero to have a gender-bending effect.

    Jennifer says:

    “The child of whom I speak is currently floating in a sac filled with amniotic fluid. It's supposed to protect this new life from all harm. In 1999, researchers looking for pesticides in amniotic fluid found them in 30% of the Californian women they tested. So we know that synthetic pesticides can cross the human placenta and enter the amniotic fluid, and it is clear that 2,4-D can make its way into human semen. How do we know 2,4-D doesn't get into amniotic fluid as well?“

    She says:

    “Frankly, I find it absurd that Bill C-53 says it will increase margins of safety for pregnant women and children and yet still allow municipalities, golf courses and private citizens to liberally apply pesticides for aesthetics, when we have compelling reason to believe they are a human health threat.”

    “As a pregnant woman in Alberta, I face pesticides falling on my head in the rain. I watch bioaccumulation of pesticides in our food chain and I struggle with the knowledge that my breast milk may well be possibly the most toxic food that my child will ever ingest! It's disconcerting when you know that in order for your child to benefit from the immune strengthening effects of breast milk, you have to feed the child all the pesticides that have accumulated in the milk as well.”

¾  (2010)  

    The Chair: Ms. Land, you've used nine minutes.

    Ms. Peggy Land: Okay, I'm almost done. I think we owe this to Jennifer.

    She says:

    “One study monitored the milk of a U.S. mother who nursed twins for three years. By the time of the weaning she had lowered her own body burden of dioxin by 69%, which is another way of saying that during the course of nursing she delivered to each of her two children a third of her own lifetime exposure to dioxin.”

    Another study referred to in the presentation from the Canadian Public Health Association showed that, not surprisingly, breast-feeding reduces women's chances of contracting breast cancer because these women have downloaded their toxins to their babies through their milk.

    The people sitting here in this room have a chance to make a positive impact on Canadians that will be felt for generations to come. How long will it be until we can educate Canadians about the hazards of pesticides in the way they deserve?

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Land.

    We'll go on to the representative from Pesticide Free Ontario, Ms. Janet May.

    Ms. May, would you like to take the floor?

    Ms. Janet May (Pesticide Free Ontario): Thank you very much for this opportunity.

    Pesticide Free Ontario is a network of groups across Ontario that are fighting to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides.

    We're quite happy to finally see a new bill. It has taken a long time. I first started doing pesticide activism 12 years ago. A national review of the Pest Control Products Act took place that year. Having taken so long to get this bill on the table, I think it's really important that we get it right.

    Pesticide Free Ontario has three main recommendations. They all deal with the cosmetic use of pesticides. We would like to see, first of all, both the precautionary principle and pollution prevention incorporated throughout Bill C-53. We agree with Making the Right Choice, the report written by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in May 2000, which recommended that a new Pest Control Products Act should incorporate both of these principles.

    We believe that the responsibility for pesticides rests with Health Canada in order to ensure that the protection of human health and the environment takes priority over the economic interests of the chemical industry.

    Bill C-53 does mention the precautionary principle, but this is in reference to the cancellation or amendment of the registration of products, rather than in allowing products onto the market in the first place.

    Instead of focusing on pollution prevention, which is an avoidance of the use of pollutants, Bill-53 concentrates on managing risk. Risk management confuses the public and environmentalists as well. It seems to be used by industry as a shield to defend the continued use of toxic chemicals, such as pesticides.

    Our second recommendation, again referring to Making the Right Choice, is that Bill C-53 should adopt a five-year phase-out of the cosmetic use of pesticides. We believe there is enough scientific evidence about the harmful effects of lawn care pesticides to warrant a precautionary approach.

    Just last month Dr. Sheela Basrur, who is the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, made a presentation to the Toronto Board of Health. She stated in that presentation, “There is enough compelling evidence to warn the public of health risks that may result from long-term exposure to pesticides. It's time to shift to alternatives.” She also noted that it's virtually impossible to avoid contact with pesticides because of their widespread use and mobility in the environment.

    As you've heard, in some urban neighbourhoods there are periods of time when pesticide spraying takes place every day. Vulnerable segments of the population are subject to low-level, long-term exposure of lawn care pesticides. Last year the Supreme Court of Canada cited the precautionary principle and upheld the right of a Quebec municipality to pass a bylaw restricting the use of pesticides to protect the health of its citizens.

    We actually are quite concerned about the fact that the federal government is trying to push this responsibility onto municipalities. Municipalities are being given a lot of extra responsibilities, and not just in environmental issues.

    I think the problem with washing your hands of pesticide regulation with regard to cosmetic use is that industry and politicians who don't want to see pesticides regulated use the fact that Health Canada approves the use of lawn care pesticides as justification for their continued use in urban areas. That poses a huge barrier for grassroots organizations such as our member groups in getting changes at the municipal level. If Health Canada would say they agree there should be a phase-out of the cosmetic use of pesticides, it would go a long way toward helping grassroots organizations, which, let's face it, don't get a lot of funding and are not as rich as the chemical industry, to make some real movement in this area. If the federal government would end its silence on the cosmetic use of pesticides, it would really help us a lot.

    The other thing we're quite concerned about is the lack of focus in Bill C-53 on alternatives. We believe there should be an alternatives assessment built into the bill, rather than risk assessment. There's really no focus on alternatives to pesticides and to lower-risk products. If there is an effective non-toxic solution for a pest problem, pesticides should not be registered in the case of new products or reregistered in the case of older products.

¾  (2015)  

    There are effective alternatives to the pesticides that are used on lawns and gardens. The problem with these alternatives is that a vocal sector of the lawn care industry refuses to change its way of doing business.

    I've worked on this issue for 12 years. These alternatives have been around for 12 years. I really don't know why the lawn care industry insists on continuing to stick to their dinosaur ways of taking care of lawns. We're in a new millennium now. We should be looking at alternatives that exist and are effective.

    Finally, the pests of lawns and gardens don't threaten either human health or the environment. We can have dandelions on our lawns and nobody is going to get cancer from those dandelions. Nobody is going to get cancer from grubs on lawns either, but we are hearing that there is concern about the pesticides we're putting on lawns.

    I think phasing out the cosmetic use of pesticides through Bill C-53 would be a wonderful opportunity for Canada. I think that by focusing on phasing out the cosmetic use of pesticides, we're setting up a really good pilot project. It wouldn't have a huge economic effect, because according to the industry the pesticides that are used on lawns and gardens don't make up a huge portion of their profits.

    There are effective alternatives. PMRA could fast-track products such as corn gluten meal, a non-toxic product registered as an herbicide in the U.S.

    I think by addressing the cosmetic use of pesticides in Bill C-53, you're sending a good message, and you could set up some really good pilots that could possibly be used in agricultural and forestry issues too.

    Public opinion certainly supports the regulation of the cosmetic use of pesticides. I've brought with me information on two surveys.

    In January 2001, the City of Toronto, prior to the Supreme Court decision, surveyed residents of Toronto about pesticides. They only surveyed people who had a lawn or were responsible for looking after a lawn. The survey found over 80% of respondents believe human health, wildlife, and water quality are adversely affected by lawn care pesticides. Over 67% believe the outdoor use of pesticides on residential lawns should be restricted. Only 18% of respondents agreed people have the right to apply chemicals on their own property.

    In September 2001, one of our member groups--the Toronto Environmental Alliance--conducted a survey of Ontario residents. They also included tenants in their survey. In that survey, 82% of the respondents supported restrictions on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

    I think the federal government can set a great example for all Canadians by adopting a policy to immediately end the cosmetic use of pesticides on all federally owned land. That could be a really good fast-track thing that could be done immediately.

    I urge everybody on this committee to make the right choice and seriously consider banning the cosmetic use of pesticides by incorporating that idea in Bill C-53.

    Thank you.

¾  (2020)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. May.

    We'll now go to Organic Landscape Alliance, with its coordinator, Colette Boileau. Ms. Boileau.

    Ms. Colette Boileau (Coordinator, Organic Landscape Alliance): Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting the Organic Landscape Alliance to appear as a witness on Bill C-53. As the voice of organic landscape professionals in Canada, OLA appreciates the opportunity to present our perspective on the use of pesticides in our industry. We would also like to suggest a critical amendment to Bill C-53 if it is to support the growing organic landscaping industry.

    The Organic Landscape Alliance was formed four years ago and officially incorporated in March 2000. We are the trade organization representing a diverse group of landscapers, lawn care specialists, and suppliers of organic fertilizers, equipment, and products for the organic landscape professional.

    All OLA members create and maintain beautiful lawns and gardens without the use of any chemical pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. There are no externalized costs from water polluted by pesticide runoff or illnesses caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.

    OLA's mandate includes disseminating information about organic lawn and garden care and promoting our industry. We hold educational seminars for landscape professionals and we maintain a referral service for customers to help them locate organic landscape services and products in their communities.

    Currently, the demand for these services and products far outstrips the supply. Since the Hudson decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last June, municipalities across this country have been taking matters into their own hands and moving to restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides. This has led to a huge boom in our industry as more and more consumers search for ways to eliminate their exposure to chemical pesticides through their lawns and gardens. Requests for referrals are up so far this year by approximately 40%.

    To respond to this demand, OLA is developing a training and certification program for organic service providers. We hope to launch this program in the fall of 2002 so that new service providers can be ready for next season. We've also just completed a brochure for organic lawn and garden care commissioned by Loblaws. The brochure will be available in Loblaws garden centres across Canada later this month.

    We are here today to celebrate the fact that Canada is rapidly going chemical-pesticide-free in landscaping and lawn care, and to ask Parliament not to stand in the way of landscapers or consumers who wish to use the best and safest products available in their quest for healthy lawns and gardens.

    Bill C-53, as it is currently written, not only tolerates but encourages the use of toxic chemicals for lawn and garden care by hindering the development and availability of safe and effective risk-free products. The bill also actively discourages the possibility of this industry emerging as a local neighbourhood-based Canadian industry by forcing small, innovative entrepreneurs to submit to the same regulatory processes as giant multinational corporations. We would like to propose an amendment that would correct this problem and promote safe and fulfilling jobs for Canadians in the organic landscaping industry.

    Organic lawn care and landscaping is principally about cultural practices--that is, creating conditions by building up soil fertility and working with natural systems so that the use of chemical pesticides is unnecessary. The use of pest control products is secondary and employed on an “as needed” basis to control specific infestations, rather than as a scheduled part of a program. Nevertheless, access to effective, minimum-risk products is essential to our industry.

    OLA is concerned that Bill C-53 does not distinguish between chemical pesticides and the minimum-risk products being developed and used in the United States and the European Union. Without a clear distinction between these products, minimum-risk products are subject to the same process for registration as chemical pesticides. We submit that this handicaps our growing and sustainable industry by limiting the tools available to organic landscape professionals.

¾  (2025)  

    Products such as milk, which has fungicidal properties, and corn-gluten meal, which demonstrates pre-emergent herbicidal qualities, currently cannot be used or advertised as such by OLA members, or anyone else practising organic landscaping. Yet they are entirely safe and risk-free.

    Because these benign products are known to have pesticidal properties, they automatically fall under the Pest Control Products Act, and become subject to the same registration process as potentially toxic chemicals. This process is lengthy and expensive and completely necessary for potentially toxic chemicals. It is unnecessary and financially prohibitive for products such as milk, corn-gluten meal, garlic, and vinegar.

    We submit that if milk could be patented, a major multinational would take it forward and pay for its registration. Because there is no possibility of a corporation owning and monopolizing the patent, milk will never be a legal pesticide under current law. So in effect Bill C-53 allows monopolies that can afford the registration process to determine which products get registered in Canada.

    In addition, the efficacy model presented in Bill C-53 encourages a quick-fix approach. This is not how nature works. Natural systems can usually self-correct when equilibrium is re-established. Products such as milk and corn-gluten meal help to maintain the natural equilibrium of a healthy landscape, rather than working in the search-and-destroy method of most chemical pesticides.

    By requiring registration for all products, even those of minimum risk, Bill C-53 disadvantages organic landscape professionals in yet another way. If a product is registered as a pesticide under the Pest Control Products Act, an applicator must have a provincial licence to apply the product. This is an expensive and unnecessary process for an organic landscaper, who has no intention of using the toxic chemical products these licences were designed for.

    Resolving these problems with Bill C-53 is not difficult. There is already a model available in the U.S. In the U.S., legislation can exempt certain products or certain classes of products that are generally regarded as safe from most of the requirements of reviews. We suggest that a similar clause that exempts such products, and allows for the prescription of policies in respect to these kinds of products, be incorporated into the Pest Control Products Act. This should apply to products such as milk, garlic, vinegar, and corn-gluten meal.

    The Organic Landscape Alliance thanks the committee for this opportunity to present our concerns and suggested amendments to Bill C-53.

    The Chair: Ms. Boileau, did you suggest that you had an amendment already worded, and where to put it in the bill?

    Ms. Colette Boileau: We're suggesting the model used by the U.S. EPA, but I don't have the actual wording. I can get the wording for it.

    The Chair: Yes, I would ask you to do that, seeing that your presentation sort of hinged on that. We'd like to see what they did, and where they put it in their own pest control products legislation, or a reasonable alternative to that.

    Thank you very much.

    We'll now go to the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada and its extension coordinator, Dr. Av Singh. Dr. Singh.

    Dr. Av Singh (Extension Coordinator, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada): Thank you.

    You might be wondering why somebody from Organic Agriculture Centre is actually here to talk about pesticides. And to be perfectly honest, I really don't know much about pesticides. I think that's why I should be here.

    Canadian farmers are doing an amazing job growing food without the use of any pesticides. Organic farmers use principles that sort of mimic nature and create sort of a stable and robust environment in which pest problems become a non-issue. Some of the agro-ecosystem healthy practices include soil-building techniques in which you use compost, you use composted manures, green manures; intensive crop rotations; cover cropping. All of these in a collective manner can strongly reduce pest management issues.

    These techniques that organic farmers are using not only minimize their external inputs, they also come out with a product of excellent quality and their yields are typically within 5% of conventional yields. So that myth that organic agriculture can't feed the world is absolutely false. The biggest thing I think I can offer here is to give your committee the confidence that they can go in and actually make this statement even stronger.

    I guess one of the things I'd like to comment on to make an even greater impact on human health and on the environment is I think Bill C-53 should clearly state that they're going to take a proactive initiative to help farmers make the transition to move away from the use of pesticides. It seems like the simplest step to reduce our risk of pesticides is to reduce our reliance on those pesticides. Simultaneously, when you're supporting farmers making that transition away from pesticides to being pesticide-free, it's also important to support the research organizations and those that are going to extend that information out to farmers so the needs of the farmers can be met.

    Specifically talking about Bill C-53, as I mentioned, an ideal way to start--and I think it's relatively understated in the bill--is to simply push for less reliance on pesticides. We've got some programs going on currently--Pesticide Free Production Canada, based out of the University of Manitoba--in which farmers have reduced the reliance on pesticides from anywhere from 25% to 50%. Integrated pest management is another technique to reduce the farmers' reliance on pesticides.

    An additional benefit, which I think is one of the key components to moving to these strategies of reducing the reliance, is you're moving the farmers away from a technology-driven system into a knowledge-based system. It takes a lot of knowledge to use things like crop rotations and cover crops and so on and so forth. So then you're introducing that new knowledge to those farmers and then they can judiciously use the technologies that science is presenting them.

    There are comments in the mandate and the preamble with respect to supporting sustainable systems. It's important for me to point out that farmers need confidence in alternative solutions. It's nice to say that yes, there are crop rotations and cover crops and so on and so forth, but we need to produce that research in a way that a conventional farmer is going to say “Yes, I do see it working, and I will make the change”, so once again needing to feed the continued research and education.

¾  (2030)  

    My last point will echo the statements made by Janet and Colette regarding PMRA and the importance of the fact that the bill alludes to an example where they could help expedite some lower-risk or minimal-risk products.

    In agriculture, as Colette mentioned, garlic spray is commonly used as a pest barrier in agricultural products. Compost teas, kaolin clay--all are non-toxic substances that are being used. If there is a way that, even through help from the Organic Agriculture Centre, we can help expedite the registration of these products or make exemptions for them, I think it would be a benefit to reducing the risks of pesticides.

    Lastly, I want to say thank you for inviting the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, and I encourage you to not back down from anything--and if anything, push forward. Farmers will survive without pesticides, and hopefully that will mean more of us will survive.

¾  (2035)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Singh.

    Our last witness is a person who came as an individual, Jean-Dominique Lévesque-René.

[Translation]

     Mr. Jean-Dominique Lévesque-René (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

    Members of the committee, in relation to the question that was asked of Ms. Marie Archambault, I would be pleased to give you the names of two reports that will answer your question. They are the clinical guide for physicians at the Accu-Chem laboratory in Texas and a document on the unacceptable risks of pesticide levels in humans and the significant findings in the tissue and blood of patients.

    The report indicates that there are no acceptable risks in terms of the level of contamination in patients examined in this study. I will provide you with these reports at the end of the meeting in the hope that they will offer some insight.

    My presentation is addressed to the Hon. Minister of Health, Anne McLellan, and members of the Standing Committee on Health. Good evening. I am here this evening to request an amendment to the new Bill C-53 on products used for the control of pests. The amendment would immediately and totally band the use of pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, for esthetic purposes in urban areas across Canada.

    Health Canada must legislate so that there is a tough law to protect the health and lives of the most vulnerable people in Canada: children. I live on Bizard Island, in the western suburbs of Montreal. Half of the island consists of three golf courses that use pesticides to maintain their greens and a residential area. There are no heavy industries or high-tension wires.

    I remember when I was young, being rushed by ambulance to hospital for a very serious nose bleed. The day before, my parents had had the lawn around my house treated with weed and feed, a mix of fertilizer and herbicide. I subsequently had major skin rashes with nausea, vomiting and nose bleeds, whenever I played on the lawn that had been treated with weed and feed fertilizer-herbicide mix.

    A doctor established that my symptoms were caused by my exposure to the product spread on my lawn. My parents immediately stopped using those products on our lawn. My symptoms disappeared. However, they reappeared when my neighbours treated their lawn with the same products.

    In January 1994, when I was only 10 years old, I felt a lump on the right-side of my neck. I showed it to my parents, who quickly drove me to Sainte-Justine Hospital in Montreal. After two weeks of medical examinations and a biopsy, a doctor told me I had cancer of the lymph nodes, Hodgkin's disease.

    In order to treat my cancer, I had to undergo 51 weeks of intensive chemotherapy treatments that made me very ill. While I was at Sainte-Justine Hospital, I asked them to find out what caused my cancer. I was given some reference material, and one document made more an impression on me even if I was quite young at the time. It was a coloured leaflet from the American Cancer Society that showed a child playing in the grass with a little dog. It just said that it had been clearly demonstrated that there was a link between the type of cancer I had, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and the use of lawn pesticides containing 2,4-D.

    The products used to treat my lawn had contained 2,4-D. I very quickly understood that my childhood exposure to pesticides was what caused my cancer. It was then that I decided to take steps to protect my health and the health of other children in my community.

    In the department where I was hospitalized, I put up a map of Quebec. Whenever a child with cancer arrived, I asked where that child lived. That is how I discovered there were 22 children with cancer from Bizard Island. All of these children had been exposed to lawn products. That is a lot of children with cancer for a small island with 13,500 residents.

¾  (2040)  

    Some friends helped me find and obtain even more relevant reference material and scientific reports establishing significant links between childhood cancer and exposure to chemical pesticides for lawn and garden maintenance in urban areas.

    A recent report published in February 2000 by the Centre hospitalier mère-enfant and Sainte-Justine Hospital, entitled L'Atlas de l'incidence du cancer chez l'enfant au Québec (Atlas of Child Cancer Incidents in Quebec), confirms that the incidents of child cancer is proportionally higher in rural and suburban areas, where there is heavy pesticide use, primarily the incidence of leukemia, lymphomas and brain cancer. The report establishes a direct link between certain childhood cancers, such as leukemia, lymphomas, bone cancer and kidney cancer, and the use of chemical pesticides in the environment

    One in 400 Quebec children has cancer. On Bizard Island, 1 in 200 children has cancer. That is why the new bill, C-53, on products used for the control of pests is of such great concern to me.

    In conclusion, children and teenagers are entitled to have their health and lives protected. There are laws that severely punish people who abuse and mistreat children and teenagers.

    Why has Health Canada always allowed companies that sell urban lawn care products and services to use pictures of children playing on the lawn in their advertisements? Why has Health Canada allowed our parents to use these lawn care products and services, knowing that these products may cause side-effects due to their toxicity, illness and even death, especially in children.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lévesque-René.

    We'll move to part two of our meeting now and begin with the questioning of witnesses by the members. We'll begin with our lead opposition critic, Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't have much for questioning because we've heard so much of this before.

    Dr. Singh, there have been tremendous improvements in technology due to genetically modified foods. We've been into a study that was interrupted because of this legislation. With the advancements of productivity because of genetically modified foods and with the reduction of pesticides, would that be a step in the right direction for safer products for the consumer, in your estimation?

¾  (2045)  

    Dr. Av Singh: Unfortunately, I think the jury's still out on that. Most of the studies I read show that the yields are substantially less. For example, Roundup Ready canola yields are less than conventional canola, and yields in Roundup Ready soybeans are about 5% to 10% less than conventional soybean yields.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: It must be a different study from what I've seen.

    Dr. Av Singh: Charles Bembrook did a study of 8,200 research sites from land grant universities and he showed that Roundup Ready soybean yields were 5% to 10% less than the conventional yields. And it showed that Roundup was sprayed five to ten times more in the Roundup Ready than in the conventional.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So are we using more herbicide or less herbicide, do you think?

    Dr. Av Singh: There's more herbicide sprayed on the Roundup Ready, of course, because it's tolerant to it, so farmers are going to spray it prophylactically.

    Consumer studies have been done by Doug Derkson at Agriculture Canada and Rene Van Acker at University of Manitoba showing that profit margins are far less in the herbicide-tolerant species for farmers because of the costs. So I don't think it's a step in the right direction.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are the profit margins much higher with organic?

    Dr. Av Singh: Currently, a similar study done, which is not yet published, by Rene Van Acker is showing that you have increased profit margins even without the premium you're getting for your organic products. You've internalized your costs in an organic system and therefore have fewer external inputs.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: And this is which study?

    Dr. Av Singh: This is a study currently being conducted at the University of Manitoba by Rene Van Acker and Martin Entz.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is that the only one of its kind that you can quote?

    Dr. Av Singh: It's the only one I know of in Canada. We're currently doing similar work just on organic systems.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mrs. Kraft Sloan

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    It's interesting that Mr. Merrifield raised this issue of GMOs. It wasn't an area I wanted to get into, but certainly underlying all of this is the ownership of genetically modified food products. They are owned by the same chemical companies that are providing the pesticides. So one would ask.... If private corporations are there to make a profit, on the one hand they may be increasing profit, but on the other they're drastically reducing it. And I think, as you have said, the jury is certainly out.

    I wanted to ask Madam May if she could help us a little bit with her proposal for an alternative assessment. I found it quite interesting. Could you expand and clarify a bit for us, as well as make some suggestions for the legislation? Could you just go over that again, please?

    Ms. Janet May: I think what Health Canada should be doing is looking at a pest problem. For example, let's take dandelions; I think everybody knows what dandelions are. We know that if you over-seed a lawn; if you keep the root system of the lawn healthy by proper fertilizing--not over-fertilizing, but proper fertilizing.... By over-seeding, I mean if you vigorously put down more grass seed a few times a year, you out-compete things like dandelions. In this case we clearly have a non-toxic alternative to 2,4-D, which is what the lawn care industry is using to control dandelions on lawns.

    In a case like that, where there clearly is a non-toxic alternative to 2,4-D, why are we even allowing 2,4-D to be registered to control dandelions on lawns? I think that sort of assessment should be carried out with respect to pesticides, and I think it can be related to agriculture too.

    I know that in Sweden they actually have implemented a product substitution regulation that allows for that sort of mechanism.

    Basically, it goes back to the old story where you've got a woman who is standing by a river, and a medical doctor tells her the river isn't really very cold: “You can certainly swim across it. You won't get a heart attack.” A water expert tells her there isn't a huge drift in the water, so she won't get carried away and drowned. But the woman won't cross over the river. These experts are stumped. They say, “Well, why won't you cross over? All our scientific evidence tells us it's safe for you to do that.” She points down the river and says, “But there's a bridge.”

    I think that is the way pesticides should be registered in this country.

    There clearly are alternatives for every single lawn care problem that is out there. Collette's members are showing that. So why are we allowing pesticides to be registered for use on lawns? There are alternatives.

¾  (2050)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

    I wanted to ask some questions around organic agriculture, and certainly anyone else can jump in on this if they want to.

    If a farmer chooses to grow organic produce, what is the process for certification? As I understand it, you have to ensure your farmland has been free of chemical pesticides, etc., for a certain length of time. Could specify that?

    Just so people understand where I'm coming from, I'm the vice-chair of the environment committee. We conducted the report on the use of pesticides in Canada. One of the things we talked about was the use of incentives to help farmers make this switch, because there is the transition time, as well as education. You have touched on some of those education issues.

    How do you become certified? How long does it take? What kinds of incentives or support might be required?

    Dr. Av Singh: Currently there is a three-year transitional period to become a certified organic grower. But of course we currently have over 45 certifying agencies in Canada, which is one of our biggest problems. If you were to go to one of those certifying agencies and you've kept good field records and haven't used certain things, that period could be reduced. It won't necessarily be a three-year period. But for most farmers who have been conventional farmers it will take three years to make that transition.

    I think you had another question on...

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Financial support or incentives to help with the transition.

    Dr. Av Singh: That is done in Europe. There is a transitional subsidy that guarantees farmers will maintain over that transitional period the same income they had when they were conventional producers.

    In my discussions with them, most organic producers have not been in favour of subsidies. They don't see the need for them. For many producers, I think the transition should be done at a slower pace, so they wouldn't immediately make the transition to an organic system over their whole farm. It would take a while to go through it, so farmers would want to make sure they diversified well enough to make it a gradual process. It isn't anything to jump into just because the market is open for it. So we encourage farmers to do the transition relatively slowly and in that way sort of hedge their bets so they can pull through.

    When you look at yields, they can be and oftentimes are comparable within those first three years. It's usually after the third year that you see a decrease in yield because the system isn't yet fully up and running. That's a time when more research efforts may be needed to help farmers out through that part of the transition.

¾  (2055)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Also, Madam May, you brought forward this idea of two amendments, one on the precautionary principle and one on pollution prevention. I'm wondering if any of the other witnesses would care to make comment on this as well.

    Could you perhaps go over again with the committee how you deal with pollution prevention in the legislation? I'm wondering if any other witnesses have concerns around this. I think in many respects it falls very closely in line with the precautionary principle, as well.

    As Madam Land has pointed out in her very eloquent presentation--albeit in someone else's handwriting, but you've at least given voice to it--there are concerns about the ubiquitous use of pesticides in many different aspects of our lives: the food we eat, the rain that falls on us, etc., etc., and you have concerns about the application process. Would anyone like to comment on pollution prevention and how it might be better operationalized in this legislation? That would be helpful.

    I think, Madam May, you started first.

    Ms. Janet May: I think that push in prevention goes back to the whole idea of where there are alternatives, that's what we should be using. Of course, pollution prevention states that it's much better to stop pollution from happening in the first place than it is to try to clean it up ultimately. So it goes back to the rainfall in Alberta. How do we clean up the rain that is polluted with 2,4-D? If indeed we weren't using 2,4-D in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem.

    By saying there will be no more cosmetic use of pesticides immediately in Bill C-53, we will be in effect preventing a whole bunch of pollution down the road. We still will have to deal with what has gone before, but if we start to stop creating pollution now, we will of course reduce the risk to future generations.

    The Chair: I think we don't want theory; we want where you would change the bill.

    Ms. Janet May: Oh, where I would change it.

    The Chair: How would you do that, and what would you say?

    Ms. Colette Boileau: This is what the Organic Landscape Alliance was proposing. You introduce a clause that exempts products, and the language from the U.S. EPA is “generally regarded as safe”. So any product that's generally regarded as safe.... We know that milk is safe because we consume it. Corn gluten meal is essentially similar to your corn flakes, so your breakfast cereals would be generally regarded as safe. If there were a clause in the bill somewhere that exempted products that were generally regarded as safe from registration.... There are certain organic pesticides that are organic-based and considered to be tools of an organic landscaper but they are toxic. We're not suggesting these be exempted. We're only suggesting products that are generally regarded as safe--the garlic sprays, the milk.

    Ms. Janet May: Some of this can be done through the labelling mechanism by which we decide on the label or PMRA writes on the label exactly what a pesticide can be used for. Of course to not use it in that way is a violation of federal law. So the labelling is certainly a way pollution prevention principles can be incorporated into Canada.

    Ms. Peggy Land: There's a huge issue as far as labelling goes. Most labels have the vaguest possible wording on them, such as avoid skin contact and avoid breathing in the pesticide. Now, what that really means is that you have to wear all this getup, and it gives the impression then that.... It doesn't go into the details; that's a whole other issue. But if people have the impression that it's safe to use as directed, and they're not even told what that means, then this is, I'm sorry to say, really evil.

    You have applicators who are not required to have the whole information. That's why we don't see them in this whole getup, because there is no legislation requiring that full information be given to those most at risk. I've seen some confusing information on this and an explanation that the new bill provides for WHMIS-like provision, and that they will be given MSDSs, which are vague, unstandardized, incomplete. Now, if they were all given complete information, then they'd have to know what the so-called inerts are. Nobody's going to see that, because the companies are too busy protecting that.

    I would suggest that in the name of public education and awareness and just a right to know, complete information must be given on all labels, as well as what that means. But we're never going to see that, because if somebody is properly protected, it's going to scare the pants off everybody else. Then everybody is going to realize, oh my goodness, these really are poisonous and they're actually agents of biological warfare. That's exactly what they are. That's why they work.

    It's a little diversion from what I think you meant to say, but it is all in the name of the same issue. Saying that a WHMIS-like provision is going to protect those most at risk just doesn't wash. As to confidential business information--this was discussed earlier--I would say that the names of the formulas for products isn't such sensitive information. Maybe the recipe is. But why can't they tell us what's mixed with 2,4-D? Why can't they just give the name of it?

¿  (2100)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because there are issues with micro-contaminants and other kinds of additives. In fact, when we were doing our study, we found that some of the micro-contaminants that existed in a couple of pesticides were actually in contravention of the government's own toxic substance management policy. So they were allowed to exist in pesticides, even though they were supposed to be track one and being virtually eliminated.

    I think Madam Goldin Rosenberg has something to add.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: Yes.

    I go back a few years, to the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes. I remember they called for zero discharge of all persistent toxic chemicals, including radium nuclides, and the principle of reverse onus, which meant that the company that wanted to use these products had to prove they were safe before they were allowed to be used, rather than this scrambling around trying to prove they're dangerous afterwards. I think that's a very sound principle. The principle of reverse onus is the way I think these contaminants should have to go.

    Then the question comes up of how you can prove a toxic substance is safe. How can you test it with all the other synergistic mixes of chemicals we're being exposed to in our bodies and in children's bodies and eggs and fetus and sperm, as I mentioned earlier?

    In terms of the precautionary principle, I think we really can rely on the IJC because it is composed of scientists from both Canada and the United States. The IJC has been in existence for many decades now. They have produced many excellent scientific studies. They're not paid by the corporations; they're funded by governments alone and not by companies that stand to benefit from those studies.

    I don't see that in this act, where we can just say zero discharge.... They should be not allowed unless they're proven safe, and then the question becomes how to prove them safe.

    I've been to so many conferences on health and the environment where I've asked scientists whether they are doing studies with multiple chemicals. Look at the pesticides, look at the organic chlorines, look at the heavy metals, look at radiation, look at a whole range of exposures that we're all exposed to every single day--air quality issues, the synergistic mix. Is anybody trying to assess all those things together? They say no, because you can't. Some try to put a few organic chlorines together. There are a number of studies where they're trying to do some things together.

    In our film, Dr. Anna Soto says everybody knows that ten dimes make a dollar. Even if you have things that are small one at a time, they add up to be more. So the zero discharge is one that I think is important.

    The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Rosenberg. Mrs. Kraft Sloan has now had 17 minutes. It's Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' turn to lead the discussion.

    Mrs. Chamberlain, do want a turn?

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): I would, but I'll be short.

¿  (2105)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me ask Dorothy a general question that will allow her to get her further comments on the record. I was curious to know what evidence exactly exists in terms of the link between breast cancer and the use of pesticides. We've talked a lot on the committee about children's health and the exposure that workers and farmers face, but what about women and breast cancer? What does the evidence say?

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: The longer a woman is exposed to these endocrine disrupters in her life, the higher the risk of getting breast cancer. As I mentioned about these xeno-estrogens, they can work directly in terms of mutations and they can promote faster growth because they're hormone disrupters. If you have aberrant tissue or a tissue that is sensitive to those hormones pushing that growth, they will grow faster, they will grow more, and you can have breast cancer.

    It doesn't have flags on it that say this is what it came from. But only 5% to 10% of breast cancer is due to a hereditary genetic mutation, so we ask, what is it that's causing the other 90% to 95% of women who are born with normally healthy genes to acquire that damage that will go on to develop that breast cancer? Only 5% to 10% are genetic. So there are all these other forces that are acting, and pesticides and chemicals.... There are many studies that have been done: Dr. Anna Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein have done studies, and Devra Lee Davis has done studies. There's a lot of information on these issues.

    See our film. Did you not get a copy of it? Every member of Parliament was given a copy of Exposure about four years ago. One of the donors to the film decided the film was so important that--five years ago now--he bought a copy of Exposure for every member of Parliament at the time. There were screenings on Parliament Hill, one for the spouses' club and one for MPs.

    There's a lot of scientific evidence. Nobody will come right out and say this was caused by that, because you don't have that kind of proof. But there's a weight of evidence that shows and indicates those relationships.

    The longer the exposure to those endocrine disrupters in our bodies.... For example, risk factors also arise when women start their menstruation and when they have their menopause. The longer that period is, the longer they're exposed to those hormone disrupters.

    Ms. Peggy Land: May I add to that as well?

    Laboratory research has resulted in mammary tumours being grown in rodents. That's as close as you're going to get to human experimentation, but at least six pesticides have been shown to cause breast cancer in animals.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: And male rats develop nipples, which is completely unusual, as Devra says in the film.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have one other question, just to see what the panellists would recommend with respect to the PMRA.

    We've had a lot of discussion here about how to change the bill to have a clarified role and responsibility for the PMRA entrenched in the law. One of these we're grappling with is the dual mandate of this agency, which some folks feel causes a conflicting set of responsibilities that denies it the ability to be a true regulatory body in overseeing issues with respect to human safety.

    Does anybody have any thoughts on what we should do in this bill around the PMRA, or have you had any experience yourselves in dealing with the PMRA?

¿  (2110)  

    Ms. Colette Boileau: Some of our members have had experience in that they have used products that are generally regarded as safe--milk--and told their customers that they were using it because it had fungicidal properties. They were sent a letter telling them that they are not allowed to do this, to be using any products that are not registered by the PMRA.

    As I mentioned in my deputation, this handicaps many of our members, because they're using products like milk, vinegar, garlic spray, and other food products that are generally regarded as safe, and they are pursued in some cases very relentlessly and have to justify why.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Boileau.

    Ms. Chamberlain.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I just want to follow up on this milk business. What do you do with it exactly?

    Ms. Colette Boileau: Studies have shown you can just apply it mixed with water to the grass. It has a fungicidal control property, so it will keep funguses down.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: And you're saying an average person couldn't use this, that somebody would come after you? I use vinegar all the time to clean. Nobody comes after me.

    Ms. Colette Boileau: An individual can use whatever they want, but a service provider cannot. So if one of our members told you they were using vinegar as a control for your dandelions, they could be charged, because it's not registered as a pest control product right now, and they're telling you it has pesticide properties.

    Corn gluten meal is a good example. Studies have shown that it has pre-emergent qualities--basically, it stops weeds from germinating. One of our members is a major supplier of this product, which is currently marketed as a fertilizer. If they in any way tell any of their clients or the people they're distributing this product to that it has herbicidal properties... They've actually been fined for doing so.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: So you could use it, you just can't say that it will do anything. But if an organization wanted to use it...

    Ms. Colette Boileau: But that severely handicaps, because people want to know what's going on their lawn, and if our members can't tell them they're putting down corn gluten for control of dandelions or whatever, it severely handicaps them. This is a way for them to market their business.

    The Chair: The people applying pesticides can't tell their customers what they're applying because they don't even know what's in it.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: No, and it seems to me that a product like milk, people would be, you know...

    The Chair: Sorry for jumping in here, Brenda, but I think the point is that most consumers just want the weeds gone. They don't even ask the people what they're spraying. They could be spraying milk, vinegar, or 2,4-D. They don't want to know. They just want another one of the burdens of their life out of the way. So I don't think your people have to tell them what they're doing.

    Ms. Colette Boileau: What tends to happen is the people who come to our members... and this has changed, because the industry's dramatically changing, but the people who came to our members in the past were people who were already concerned about the issue. And in some cases they had been burned, because some of the conventional service providers also provide “organic” service.

    The organic service is often supplied as a way to reel people in. They put on the fertilizers for a couple of applications and then the weeds come back and people say “See, I have weeds”. Then they suggest that they go to the conventional process. So these people have come to our service providers desperate, because they do not want chemicals.

    There's been a lot of misinformation--for example, people being told that Merit is organic. It's not organic. And this is stressful for many people, obviously. In fact, we have some members who don't use products at all, for this exact reason. They focus on the cultural practices. In the brief I distributed there's a synopsis of what the cultural practices are.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I just wanted to ask Dr. Singh, if I heard you right, you said that the organic way is as cost-effective as any other. Is that correct?

    Dr. Av Singh: In many cases, of course, it's going to be more cost-effective because you are internalizing all your inputs. Your inputs are coming from within.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: The question I want to ask you is why, when I go to the grocery story and buy organic carrots, does it cost me $3.99, but if I buy carrots that are supposedly contaminated—if you want to call it that, in this committee—they're 99¢?

    Dr. Av Singh: Currently, there are a lot of supply and demand issues. In Canada, we import 85% of the organic materials we consume. So if we started producing those carrots here and a lot more were being produced to meet the demand, the price would go down. An example is Loblaws--PC Organics. They're starting to meet the demand of consumers. The whole organic food sector has been consumer-driven. It hasn't been anything that academics have pushed or anything, it's all been consumers. That's why the premiums are still at 25% to 50%, but they will go down as the supply--

¿  (2115)  

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: That's a big deal for shoppers. The reality is, somebody who cannot afford a small bag of carrots is going to save $3 in buying.... Right?

    Dr. Av Singh: That's true.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Yes, because cost does drive...

    Dr. Av Singh: There is some education that needs to be done about the true cost of production--

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: The health costs.

    Dr. Av Singh: --and the fact that most organic is not as subsidized as conventionally produced items.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: So when you make that statement, it's not really right, then, at this point.

    Dr. Av Singh: No, I think a majority of the premium you're seeing is because of the supply.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Okay.

    Madam May, you quoted something. You did a survey, or a survey was done, and 82% of Ontarians support.... I wasn't sure what you said there. Was it the restrictive use of pesticides? What was the word you used?

    Ms. Janet May: They supported restrictions on pesticide use on lawns.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Okay, so what does that mean to you, “restrictions”?

    Ms. Janet May: It's hard to say. It's always very difficult when you do surveys, because we found that when you use the word “ban”, people react quite negatively.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Yes.

    Ms. Janet May: So we take “restrictions” to mean more of a phased-in approach. It would eliminate the routine use of pesticides on lawns that presently goes on, where the company comes and sprays five times.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Or maybe use pesticides in balance. Is that what you mean?

    Those 82% aren't supporting a ban. That's what I want to be clearer on. When you said “restrictions”, that's not a ban.

    Ms. Janet May: No, it is not a ban.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: No.

    So that's a high percentage.

    Ms. Janet May: Yes, it is high.

    The Chair: The word “ban” elicits a negative response. I think it's a psychological thing--

    Ms. Janet May: Yes.

    The Chair: --in the sense that a ban of anything suggests we're going to limit the average citizen's freedom to choose what they're going to do.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: But 82% support restrictions. I don't know what that means.

    The Chair: It shows their ambivalence, in my view. I would interpret it to say “Yes, we really know that pesticides are bad, but I really like my green lawn and I'm not sure whether this other method...”. I think that's where Ontarians are right now. They're not sure which way they want to go. So the word “ban” would turn them off. But they also feel guilty, because they know pesticides are bad for their health and their children's health. They're bombarded with advertising from the pesticide-using lawn care companies showing these glorious colour prints of what their house might look like if only they hired ChemLawn or somebody to come and spray it all the time. Yet there isn't an opposite entry into their consciousness from the organic people or the people who are fighting the proliferation of pesticides. That's why they're ambivalent.

    They might read one article in the newspaper about health facts and then get three brochures from three lawn care companies. So they're kind of torn at this point, because no one has ever mounted the big education campaign to make it really clear to them.

    Even if we banned it, there will be people who are essentially addicted to their lawn. That's their hobby. It's their greatest pleasure. It's their pride and joy. They don't want one blade of anything other than the perfect grass. The problem is, how far are we ready to go now, and how could we impact their consciousness sufficiently to make them really enthusiastic about a ban?

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: All I'd liken it to is tobacco use. If you're seriously going to ban pesticides, you should be banning tobacco too as a government, in all honesty.

    The Chair: Exactly.

¿  (2120)  

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: So you have to have the guts to do it all.

    The Chair: Well, you see, there are municipalities now who have banned smoking in public places. So municipalities have actually taken the lead there.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: That's right. Ours has done it.

    The Chair: Ours has too, and there are municipalities at the moment debating this ban of pesticide use for cosmetic purposes. So they're coming. But these people are saying to us, we have some responsibility to take the lead.

    Anyway, I'm talking on, and I shouldn't.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Yes, I wanted them to explain the restrictions, but thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: I'm just saying, that's what I would read into such a thing. The witness might not read the same thing into it.

    Ms. Janet May: I think one of the other big problems, too, is the way pesticides are telemarketed. You get people phoning you up. I entrap them all the time. When they phone me, I say, “Well, are these products safe?” I get told, “Yes, they are safe”.

    The Chair: Oh, yes, yes.

    Ms. Janet May: And that is clearly a violation of what the PMRA says. But nobody is actually enforcing these sorts of regulations.

    I've had companies tell me there are no laws to mandate warning signs being put on the lawn. Yet that is Ontario legislation. These companies say to me--not knowing I'm a pesticide activist--“Oh, we only do it because we're a good company, and we want people to feel comfortable with these signs”.

    There is a lot of stuff going on out there, where people are being misled by companies about these products. That's why we see continuing use of pesticides, despite, as you say, this feeling that pesticides are not good. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: Lies.

    In our film I remember Jean-Dominique's mother, Monique, talking about how the salespeople told her it was safe enough to drink. Right, Monique?

    If this is what is going on, and people are asking these questions and are being told it's perfectly safe, and they don't know who to ask for verification, they'll just believe it. They'll allow it to be used. Not everybody's reading the TEA stuff.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: But I really believe people are educating themselves a lot more now.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: Some.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I really do.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: More and more...

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: As for seeing a picture of a perfect lawn, I think a lot more people were obsessed 15 years ago with a perfect lawn than today.

    I think people are far more aware; people are far more aware of their health. Women are far more aware of the things they should do in order to prevent bone loss, and the whole works. We are just much more health-conscious. I think anything that is going to be more healthy can be marketed. People will buy into it. We're in that generation.

    The Chair: They will be. But the fact is the huge corporations are bombarding the public to retain... I shouldn't tell you my feelings.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: We should encourage people to shop at Loblaws when they start to clean stuff--

    The Chair: Yes.

    Ms. Brenda Chamberlain: That's right.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: --because that's going to be a real test of a successful market.

    They've taken a very bold step. I'm not sure why they've done it. I know the head of public relations read the article about the late Dr. Nicole Bruinsma, and was very moved, apparently, to take the decision to make Loblaws switch.

    But Loblaws also has people demonstrating against it every week on genetically modified foods, because they won't label. So you wonder: did they do this because of that, or was the guy really moved to do this in a way that--

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Maybe it's Dave Thomas who's getting into the act.

    Ms. Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg: But I think we need to encourage people to support them, to shop there. I don't have a garden and a lawn, but we have to make the market work. It's going to set a precedent for other companies that are big nurseries or lawn care companies, etc., to go in that direction as well. It's very positive, though.

    Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Yes, absolutely.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Chamberlain.

    And thank you to all of the witnesses for coming here and sharing your thoughts, and for trying to conform to all my rules. I try to go around and make sure everybody has a chance.

    This meeting is now adjourned.