Below is
the Hansard debate on the changes to the Integrated Pest Management Act. The “cosmetic
pesticide” amendments to the legislation were given royal assent on March 14
which means it is now law in BC. There is no timeline associated to when the ministry
will implement the changes but if the Liberals are elected we will likely see
it coming for 2014. The NDP if elected will bring in their own
legislation; likley a sweeping ban on pesticides.
IEPMA
DEBATES OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
WEDNESDAY, MARCH
13, 2013
Afternoon
Sitting
M. Sather: This section is
on amendments to the Integrated Pest Management Act and has to do with the
regulation and use of pesticides. The minister will be very aware that there
was a committee struck to look at the advisability of having a comprehensive
ban on cosmetic pesticides in the province. There were widespread consultations
before the committee met, and during the period when the committee met there
were over 8,000 responses from the public, which is a record for parliamentary committees
in this province. The overwhelming majority of those respondents were in favour
of a ban on cosmetic pesticides. Can the minister explain why his government,
receiving all that feedback from the public, failed to implement a ban, such as
seven other provinces in Canada have?
Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to
thank my staff for being here with me on this section of the bill. I have Jim
Standen, who's our assistant deputy minister for the environmental protection division,
and Daphne Dolhaine, who's the manager of integrated pest management programs. We
do appreciate the good work of the committee. It was a very involved process,
as the member recognizes, a lot of input — in fact, as he mentions, a record
number of responses. The committee also did a lot of work looking at the method
now to approve pesticides in Canada through the pest management regulation and
found that in fact the method used to evaluate pesticides was based on
scientific understanding of the effects of the pesticides, both on people and the
environment. Whereas a lot of people had expressed a desire to see a ban on
cosmetic pesticides, the committee came to a different conclusion. I think
that's the difference between a consultative process and simply asking for a
show of hands. This was more than just a show of hands. This was a deep
investigation into the systems of approving pesticides in Canada and the way pesticides
are used in the province of British Columbia. The conclusion of the committee
was that there was in fact a need for more education and more controls on the
use of pesticides in British
Columbia. That is why we are here today looking to implement a system whereby
pesticides that are used — the vast majority of pesticides that we consider
cosmetic use in the homeowner situation — be limited to those who are trained
and licensed to use those chemicals.
M. Sather: Was the Ministry
of Environment not aware of the regulatory process with Health Canada? And did
they decide that there had been substantial differences, I guess, over a short
period of time? Wouldn't the ministry have been aware of how Health Canada
regulates pesticides?
Hon. T. Lake: Well, of course
the ministry is very well aware. But these sorts of consultation exercises are
about information-gathering and also disseminating information and increasing
awareness among the general public about the way government works. This was a really
good tool, I think, to educate many people about the way pesticides are
approved and regulated in Canada. But, certainly, our ministry works very
closely with Health Canada and with the agencies that are responsible for
regulating pesticides.