Bill 22: A bill to make pesticides more available in Manitoba

 In 2014, the Manitoba Legislature passed into law a bill which would restrict the use of cosmetic pesticides in Manitoba.   Similar legislation was already in place in Quebec and Ontario.  It was passed in part because people in Manitoba wanted to reduce the exposure of children to pesticides which have been demonstrated to have toxic effects on children who are exposed to them.  This year, the Conservative government brought in Bill 22 which will roll back these restrictions and will allow much more widespread use of these cosmetic pesticides in Manitoba. On Wednesday March 23rd, I had the opportunity to ack questions about the government's bill and then to ask questions on the bill. 

My questions to the Minister on Bill 22

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My ques­tion is specific: Will the pesticides be banned within the grounds of the Assiniboine zoo?

Mr. Wharton: I would also like to thank the member from River Heights, as well, for joining in the bill discussion as well, and certainly ap­pre­ciated his com­ments and input as we move forward collectively in this House to pass Bill 22 into legis­lation this spring.

      And, certainly, we know, and as I mentioned to the member from River Heights, munici­palities will have their own autonomy, contrary to what the mem­ber from Concordia says, and will continue to have that autonomy to make decisions that are best for their com­mu­nity.

[As you will note, the Minister, Jeff Wharton, was not even able to answer this simple question.]

Mr. Gerrard: We've all, I think, been ap­pre­cia­tive of the wonderful care that's taken of the grounds of the Legislature, and this has occurred even when there was a ban on these herbicides and pesticides.

      So I wonder if the minister would prevent–present a report explaining how the Legislature has done such an exceptional job at a time when these were banned when he has such high concerns about the ineffective­ness of other agents than these herbicides.

An Honourable Member: Well, we dug up half the yard.

Mr. Wharton: The minister–pardon me–the member from Steinbach took the answer, but I'll certainly elaborate a little bit on that.

      I'm hoping that this summer we'll have the op­por­tun­ity to ensure that Health Canada-approved pro­ducts are able to be put on the lawns of the Legislature, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly at this current point that's not going to happen.

      But, again, we are going to rely on the scientists of Health Canada to ensure that that direction is followed as it is in every other juris­dic­tion west of Manitoba and east.

[The Minister confirmed that he will allow cosmetic pesticides to be used on the lawns of the Legislature.  These are lawns where there are often children coming to play, to picnic and to advocate for attention to issues of their concern including climate change.  We have had large rallies at the Legislature with many children and youth present advocating for a better response to climate change.  To advocate for the use of cosmetic pesticides on lawns where there are often children playing is wrong.  This is particularly true when the government was able to look after these lawns well and keep them in really good shape without using these cosmetic pesticides for the last few years.]

Mr. Gerrard: I'm asking the minister, given that the effects of these pesticides may well be on bird species as well as on children, whether the gov­ern­ment has done any monitoring of bird species before the ban, during the ban to find out if there's been any impact on bird species in Manitoba.

Mr. Wharton: I know that Alberta and Saskatchewan, for instance, have no ban on pesti­cides–Health Canada-approved pesticides. They also have no buffer zones, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and no restricted areas. I call them the no-fly zones, like school grounds, playgrounds, parks, prov­incial parks.

      So, certainly, we're going to trust the 350 scientists in Ottawa. I would suspect that the member from River Heights would also support the federal Liberals in the initiative to move forward with the best science that's available to us.

Mr. Gerrard: I have had concerns from people with expertise who were not consulted on this bill.

      I wonder if the minister would provide a list of the people who were consulted and who provided input, and will the minister table the list today?

Mr. Wharton: Again, certainly, the member knows, and I've mentioned it a couple of times in this ques­tion period, that Health Canada has 350 scientists that have done and continue to do their research to protect Canadians, in this case Manitobans, going forward and will continue to ensure that the health of Manitobans is priority one.

[The Minister is talking of the 350 scientists is referring to scientists working at Health Canada.  Very few of these scientists will be specifically knowledgeable on pesticides, and almost certainly the Minister has not consulted them personally, but is rather referring to the Canada-wide rules regarding chemical use.  It is to be noted that while these pesticides have been approved for use across Canada, individual provinces have taken different approaches and that the largest provinces - Ontario and Quebec have banned the use of cosmetic pesticides because of evidence they can be harmful to children].

Mr. Gerrard: The minister, when I asked him for a list of people consulted, said that he'd consulted 350 Health Canada scientists, but I suspect–I suspect–that he's consulted other people.

      Would he provide a list of the other people that he's consulted?

Mr. Wharton: One thing our gov­ern­ment does and prides ourself on, other–unlike the members opposite, including the member from River Heights, is consult with Manitobans, and that's exactly what we've done. We've heard loud and clear that the bill that was intro­duced by the former gov­ern­ment, the NDP gov­ern­ment, in 2014 was ideology set to only perform to a certain amount of their support, Madam Speaker.

      We know that we rely on science on this side of the House. That's exactly what we're going to continue to do. Health Canada-approved products is exactly what we're talking about today.

      I wish the member from River Heights would just get on board. 

[It is shameful that the Minister accuses me of not consulting with Manitobans.  I do this a lot.  Furthermore, I have a careful look at the scientific work that has been done when I consider a bill like this one.'

Mr. Gerrard: I'm disappointed that the minister could not provide this–a single name of a single person that he consulted. I think I'll ask again: Will the minister provide a full list of the names of people who he consulted on this bill?

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member–the hon­our­able Minister–excuse me–of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks.

Mr. Wharton: I was pleased to be joined at our an­nounce­ment two weeks ago by the president of AMM, Mr. Kam Blight, who we stood shoulder to shoulder with to move forward with a bill that's im­por­tant not only to munici­palities, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to industry and to all Manitobans. We're looking forward to passage of this bill this spring and we're also looking forward to full support from mem­bers opposite.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Wharton was able to confirm that he had consulted one person, Mr Kam Blight.   We will see at committee stage whether there are more advocates for this bill.]

My speech on Second reading of Bill 22:

Mr. Gerrard: This Bill 22 will reverse earlier legis­lation which was put in place, I believe, in 2014, which banned cosmetic pesticides, the use of cosmetic pesticides, in Manitoba.

      As we consider this legis­lation, we as legis­lators need to be concerned about the potential impacts on human health, well-being. We want to optimize health. We want to prevent sickness. We want to make sure that we are not going down a track which will increase neurological issues, learning and behavioural problems, crime, et cetera.

      We also are at a time when we've got to be very careful about ecosystem health, the health of eco­systems in Manitoba, the health of birds, the health of mammals, including pets, the health of insects like bees. This is very im­por­tant that we preserve biodiversity, and that we are looking at the impacts of what we do on the health of ecosystems in our province.

      We all remember what happened with DDT, that when DDT was used that it had major adverse effects on many bird species–from cormorants and pelicans to eagles to peregrine falcons to many different species of raptors, which are birds which are on the higher part of the food chain–because DDT and its metabolites built up and didn't break down. And so that the metabolites and DDT concentrated in the bodies of organisms as you go up the food chain, and that concentration was, in some cases, extra­ordin­ary so that you got very high concentrations which had major impacts on birds and their reproduction.

      So we need to employ the precautionary prin­ciple. We need to do this with respect, not just to individual chemicals, but we have to recog­nize that sometimes there are synergistic effects of more than one chemical in the environ­ment, that there can be synergistic effects of added pesticides or herbicides based on the parti­cular environ­ment because environ­ments vary.

      And so that this is complex, and we need to be using and aware of what people have talked about for a long time now, the precautionary principle. Let's be very careful and not get us into a situation where we have more cancer, where we have more learning pro­blems, where we have more behavioural problems and so on.

      One of the aspects of this legis­lation which is of concern is the lack of due diligence in a number of areas where I would have expected it. We have very close to us the lawn in the Legis­lative grounds, which has been managed very well over the last several years since we had the cosmetic ban. We should have had a report on the manage­ment of the lawn here, the ap­plication of whatever chemicals were used when the standard–old standard and old chemicals, which were herbicides and pesticides, were not able to be used.

      The grass, as we all know, has been well kept. The grounds are very often the site of children, sometimes coming with groups who want to protest, sometimes coming just to enjoy the Legis­lative grounds. So these are clearly an area where there are children playing. We should be not only using due diligence and know what's happening and have a report provided to us, but we shouldn't be adding the potential for chemical exposure which might have adverse effects on kids, including things like causing learning problems and neurological issues.

      There is a lack of reports from within Manitoba related to bird popu­la­tions and bird species. These are species which are well monitored in other juris­dic­tions, but we don't have any results of the impact on bird species, of lift putting the ban on, and we don't know whether there may be impacts of removing the ban on cosmetic pesticides, as this legis­lation pro­poses to do.

      So there's a lack of direct scientific observations in Manitoba on the effects of these chemicals in the environ­ment, on human health or on birds.

* (16:30)

      So this would have been helpful and useful. It would have been easily possible for the gov­ern­ment to provide a report on the con­sul­ta­tions, including who  was consulted, what people said, what scientific evidence was actually presented during the course of their con­sul­ta­tions.

      These were all things which we should have had access to in looking at this legis­lation. There's a lot of concern, and I hear these, as others do, about munici­palities and being able to get rid of weeds in drainage ditches. I think the big concern is weeds which could get into fields where farmers are growing crops, but we don't have, you know, a specific report on what has happened in the last eight years since 2014. We don't have a report which talks about effectiveness and costs in more than a vague, anecdotal kind of way. I would have expected better from this gov­ern­ment.

      I think in this context, I mean, it's interesting. As a person who likes to go for walks and likes to get out­­side, that it has seemed to me that, oh, 10 years ago there were far fewer songbirds and sparrows and warblers, in parti­cular, in the Assiniboine Forest and in the forest that's between Grant and Corydon, just adjacent there, and that in the last few years there have been more songbirds present.

      Is this a result of an impact of the ban on pesticides? I have no idea. Maybe it's–objective re­search wouldn't show the same effect, but it's these kinds of observations which we need to be concerned about and interested in and looking at because when we're looking at making a major change in the use of chemicals, in this case, pesticides in Manitoba, we should be doing careful due diligence. We should be making sure that we have observations which can be replicated.

      There have been many groups who have come forward, who came forward in 2014 and who come forward again talking about the need to keep this ban on cosmetic pesticides. It's interesting that Ontario and Quebec and a number of other provinces have been able to not only bring in this ban, but keep it and operate it very suc­cess­fully. There doesn't seem to have been a disaster in Ontario and Quebec as a result of removing the use of these cosmetic pesticides.

      I think that we should make sure we're looking at that ex­per­ience in Ontario and Quebec, and asking, you know, why Manitoba seems to have had more pro­blems in controlling weeds than other juris­dic­tions, why this has been more of an issue here. We have, of course, not only, you know, other provinces but organi­zations which cross many provinces involv­ing physicians, Canadian parks association, learning dis­abil­ities, Manitoba College of Family Physicians, and Manitoba lung association, and on and on, organi­zations which have come out and supported this and opposed the removal of the ban and the much wider use which would result in terms of pesticides and herbicides.

      We want to be, I think, parti­cularly concerned in today's world about chemicals which can influence brain and neurological function. That we know from ex­per­ience with chemicals like lead in the environ­ment, that it can have a big effect on IQ and be­havioural problems and learning problems, and has been associated with increase in crime.

      Now, we're very concerned about crime. We need to be looking and assessing what may be some of the root contributing factors, and we want to make sure that we're not adding to the burden of neurological problems and behavioural problems.

      I talked to a number of my pediatric physician col­­leagues and they observed more behavioural and learning problems in the last few years. It's not clear just why this is happening, but I think it is some­thing which we need to be cognizant of and concerned about.

      If it is a major problem and there's no other solu­tion in rural areas and drainage ditches–this, you know, is not the same situation in the city of Winnipeg or in urban areas that it is in rural areas–why are we moving fast to get rid of the ban in urban areas?

      I think that the issues are not just where children play, but the issues are broader because chemicals like this will spread. And the issues, even with the limita­tions which are given, the areas which are protected–parks, picnic areas and so on–that the minister is not clear as to whether people visiting the Assiniboine zoo will be in an area where cosmetic pesticides are–can be used or not. And that's clearly an area where there's large numbers of children going and playing and en­joy­ing them­selves, and we don't want to have them get into a situation where there can be health risks and health issues as a result.

      One of the concerns–and I've mentioned this–is in terms of bird species. And talking about science and scientific evidence, there was a study which was pub­lished in the journal, Science, one of the top scientific journals. And this was about three years ago.

      And this was a group of researchers from Canada and the United States looking at bird popu­la­tions across North America. And they were individuals from New York State; from Washington, DC; from Ottawa; from Maryland; from Environ­ment and Climate Change Canada in Ottawa; from the–Wisconsin; from Colorado; from various areas all over North America.

      And the interesting thing about this is that when they looked very carefully at all the data that's avail­able over the last 50 years, that they came to the con­clusion that, compared with 50 years ago, we have lost 3 billion birds in North America. That's a rather startling number, a rather large number.

      And, indeed, as this article, which I'll quote–the scale of loss portrayed in the Science study is unlike anything recorded in modern natural history. This is a big effect. This is a very large loss of a–all the birds in North America.

      Why has this happened? Well, we don't fully under­stand it, but we don't want to be contributing to further loss by adding back pesticides and herbicides which might be contributing factors. We need to be looking after the ecosystems.

      It's interesting that the loss of 3 billion birds contains a parti­cular mention of the loss of birds which are grassland birds–birds which may nest in areas which could be sprayed by people who want to protect grasslands. And that–it is also interesting that the loss–although it's done over 50 years, they were able to look with radar, because with radar you can monitor the migration of birds, parti­cularly in the spring, and you can see on radar the–essentially, what are–look like almost clouds on radar of migrating birds.

      And what they found was that, in North America, that just in the last 10 years there's been a very sig­ni­fi­cant and continuing decrease of migratory birds in North America. And that includes, in some areas, de­creases of, in 10 years, about up to 30 per cent. That's a startling number proportion of birds lost in a rela­tive­ly short span of time. It's some­thing that we need to be concerned about, and as we look after and are stewards of our environ­ment and of our ecosystem, we need to make sure that we're not going to be doing things which are going to cause problems to the ecosystem.

      Environ­mental chemicals, pesticides, causing pro­blems for birds, there's a history of this. And we need to be very careful lest we lose a lot of bird species, and remember that, you know, many bird species are actually very helpful to farmers in taking care of insects, et cetera.

      That we should not dismiss a tre­men­dous loss of birds and of bird species, but we should take note, we should look at the science, which I've talked about, and we should be prepared to look very carefully and be very cautious about reversing the decision that has been made to ban cosmetic pesticides.

      The–overall then, if I'm to sum up, we need to worry about the precautionary principle. We need to worry about this for human health, cancer and brain health. We need to worry about this as it concerns with ecosystem health.

      And I will look forward to pre­sen­ta­tions which are made at the com­mit­tee, meeting presenters, and hope we have a wide variety of presenters and hope that the presenters are able to present evidence and science in their pre­sen­ta­tion so that we as legis­lators can be enriched in our under­standing of the impacts of pesticides and come to a–the best possible decision for pesticides or not pesticide use as it applies to pre­venting health problems as apprised to stewardship of the ecosystems in our province.

      There is a lot of work to do. This is a piece of legis­­lation which we need to consider very carefully, and I'm looking forward to those com­mit­tee meetings so that we can have that discussion and dialogue and much more evidence presented.

      So thank you, Madam Speaker.