Manitoba Committee Hansard — 5 October 2022 (Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 1, 42nd Legislature, 4th Session)

42-4-ag1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food Chairperson Mr. Ian Wishart Constituency of Portage la Prairie Vol. LXXVI No. 1 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, October 5, 2022 ISSN 1708-6647

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Second Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALTOMARE, Nello Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma Union Station NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian Keewatinook NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy Kildonan-River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Roblin PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GORDON, Audrey, Hon.

Southdale PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah, Hon. Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg, Hon. Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek, Hon. Interlake-Gimli PC JOHNSTON, Scott, Hon. Assiniboia PC KHAN, Obby Fort Whyte PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan, Hon. Selkirk PC LAMONT, Dougald St. Boniface Lib. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib.

LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya Notre Dame NDP MARTIN, Shannon McPhillips PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC MOSES, Jamie St. Vital NDP NAYLOR, Lisa Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg, Hon. Riding Mountain PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle, Hon. Turtle Mountain PC REDHEAD, Eric Thompson NDP REYES, Jon, Hon. Waverley PC SALA, Adrien St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron Springfield-Ritchot PC SMITH, Andrew, Hon.

Lagimodière PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Vérendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC Vacant Kirkfield Park

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD Wednesday, October 5, 2022 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mrs. Cathy Cox (Kildonan-River East) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Johnson, Wharton Mrs. Cox, Ms. Naylor, Messrs. Wiebe, Wishart APPEARING: Hon.

Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Anne Lindsey, private citizen Katharina Stieffenhofer, private citizen Glen Koroluk, Manitoba Eco-Network Wendy Buelow, private citizen Cameron Wilson, Neudorff North America Yanik Sourisseau, private citizen David Hinton, Manitoba Nursery Landscape Association Josh Brandon, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg Shirley Forsyth, private citizen Steve Rauh, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Joanne Seiff, private citizen Murray Cunningham, Environmental Health Association of Manitoba Ben Raber, private citizen Vicki Burns, private citizen Meg Sears, Prevent Cancer Now Randall McQuaker, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 22–The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr.

Tim Abbott): Good evening, everyone. Will the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the busi - ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): I nominate MLA Wishart. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Wishart has been nominated. Any other nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Wishart, please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Our next item of business is to elect a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Johnson: I nominate MLA Cox. Mr. Chairperson: MLA Cox has been nominated.

Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Cox is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 22, The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions). I'd like to inform all in attendance of the provisions of our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of the bill, except by unanimous consent of the committee.

For written submissions, written submissions for the following members have been received and dis - tributed to the committee: Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Munici palities; Joanne Seiff, private citizen; Murray Cunningham, Environ mental Health Association of Manitoba; and Ben Raber, private citizen. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in Hansard transcript of the meeting? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with the public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee.

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allocated for pre sentation with another five minutes allowed for questions from this– from committee members. Questions from members must not e xceed 30 seconds in length with no time limit on the answers. Questions must be addressed to the presenter in the following rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the bill; second, the member of the official opposition; and, third, an independent member.

If a presenter is not in attendance when the name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called the second time, they will be removed from the presenters list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a 'verbatin'–verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it is an MLA or a presenter, I first must call that person's name. This is a signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. During pre sentations–list is over here some - where.

Bill 22–The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) Mr. Chairperson: I will now call on Margaret Friesen, private citizen. Point of Order Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of A griculture): Were we–point of order. Were were going to maybe decide on rotations? Possibly we could have con sideration for in -person, out-of-town presenters to present first. Mr. Chairperson: Is there agreement to consider that? [Agreed] * * * Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and–we will vary the order, then, by–and call on first any in -person, out-of-town presenters, if there are any.

Seeing none identifying themselves, we will – [interjection] Yes. We'll revert to the order as pre - sented here. Okay, going back to where we were, Margaret Friesen, private citizen, as first presenter. Not seeing her in attendance, she will drop to the bottom of the list. We'll move on–and she'll be called again when we get to that point. Second person on the list is Shirley Forsyth, pri- vate citizen. I'll call again Shirley Forsyth, private citizen. No one here coming forward, dropped to the bottom of the list and will be called again at that point. [interjection] Yes.

Third person on the list is Katharina Stieffenhofer, pr ivate citizen. Call again – [interjection] They will be called again. Okay, we will continue down the list. Fourth person is Anne Lindsey, private citizen. She's here. We're–oh. She's here? Is –we're in agree- ment to revert to–[interjection] An Honourable Member: Point of order. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Point of order, Mr. Minister. An Honourable Member: Can you continue, Mr. Chair–[interjection] Yes, recognize me. Mr. Chairperson: Minister Wharton. Hon.

Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): We were calling Anne Lindsey, and I think we should continue with calling Anne Lindsey. I believe she's here. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, well we–[interjection] We will revert back at due course. * * * Mr. Chairperson: So, currently, we are calling Anne Lindsey, private citizen. Anne Lindsey, thank you for coming. Are you ready to make your presentation? Anne Lindsey (Private Citizen): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Begin your presentation. A. Lindsey: Thanks very much for having me here and the opportunity to present this evening.

I am a member of the coalition known as Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba. We are a group of volunteer repre sentatives from environ mental and health organizations from around the province. We work actively towards reducing unnecessary chemical exposure from chemical–from cosmetic pesticides. * (18:10)

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 I would like to note a letter that we sent to Ministers Wharton and Gordon, endorsed by more than 30 prominent health and environmental groups, including the Manitoba c ollege of physicians, the Winnipeg Humane Society, Learning Dis abilities Association of Manitoba, Manitoba Health Coalition, David Suzuki Foundation and so on more than three months ago on this topic. We have not received a response. My main focus this evening will be on human health, and I understand that others will speak to im - pacts on ecosystems and water.

So, my personal first awareness of cosmetic pesticides –when my children were very young. So, we're going back 40 years. It's not something that w e used at our home, but we started to notice they were being used on things like soccer fields, in parks. We also noticed a strong odour in neighbourhoods after chemical trucks were spraying. At the same time, we were becoming aware of mosquito fogging, the chemicals used on food pro- ducts and air pollutants.

And as a conscientious young parent, I wanted to ensure the safest possible environ- ment for my children, so we tried to avoid chemicals when we did not have to be exposed to them. Didn't have a lot of infor mation back then, but I had an inherent sense that we were surrounded by a lot of chemicals. Once I started work in the environ mental move- ment at the Manitoba Eco -Network, I started to be - come more aware.

I was exposed to experts, various NGOs and different policy work at the prov incial, national and international level that indicated that the miraculous chemicals that we've all become so ac - customed to using in everyday life had lots of undesired impacts on health and ecosystems. This included pesticides being used to keep lawns and green space weed free. I hope the com mittee members have taken the time to consult research on this, and I'm going to give one example. The Ontario College of Family Physicians in 2012 did a systemic review of pesticide health effects.

They reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded that exposure to pesticides is strongly link- ed to a ride–wide variety of human health problems– and I'm going to name them –including: adverse reproductive, neurological and respiratory outcomes, Parkinson's disease, asthma, obstructive lung disease, ALS, diabetes and some cancers. I name them because who amongst us has not had a family member or friend who's been affected by these illnesses? Who's most at risk? Amongst other groups , our children.

Both prenatal exposures and exposures in the early years can lead to birth defects, learning dis - orders and certain cancers. These facts alone mean that restrictions and bans on cosmetic pesticide s should be a no-brainer. The Ontario colle ge concluded that unneces sary pesticide exposure should be avoided, and that echoes Health Canada in their 2007 publication, and I quote: It is good practice to reduce or eliminate any unneces- sary exposure to pesticides. Unquote. I want to emphasize that these chemicals are un- necessary by nature. They are used for purely aesthetic purposes.

And we know that green space and lawns can be created and maintained without the use of chemicals. At the Eco-Network, we developed edu- cational programs to assist people who wanted to keep their lawns and green space looking nice without the use of chemicals. Hundreds, if not thousands of people took those workshops. They were able then to reduce their family's exposure, but unfor tunately, when restrictions don't exist, individuals may not use them but families are still exposed in their neigh - bourhoods, parks and so on.

People breathe in these chemicals when they walk to school, when they spend time outside. This is why restrictions on sale and use are so important. Municipalities led the way on this issue. The town of Hudson in Quebec in 1991 had a bylaw restricting chemical–the use of cosmetic pesticides. They were challenged by two big cor porations, ChemLawn and Spraytech, which said they didn't have the right to pass such a bylaw.

However, every court, up to the Supreme Court of Canada, agreed with Hudson that they had every right to protect the health and welfare of their citizens, and this became a landmark ruling in Canada. More municipalities followed, and then pro- vinces. Manitoba was late to the game, but in 2014, we joined the majority of Canadians under protection from cosmetic pesticides. So we've benefitted from six years of cleaner, healthier environments here. As far as I know, Manitoba would be the first jurisdiction to roll back such restrictions if Bill 22 passes. This is a major move backwards, and it's a great shame.

It puts people and ecosystems at risk. I just want to address a couple of points that seem to be driving this legislation. The first one is to do with

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 costs, and I'm aware of the lobbying by rural munici- palities about how much more it costs them to main - tain green space. In fact, the Canadian association of physicians for environment conducted a study a few years back now, looking at munici palities and different juris dictions under cosmetic pesticide bans, and they found that none of them were spending significantly more to maintain acceptable green spaces.

I'm wondering if committee members have asked themselves, what are the costs to health -care system from the potential out comes of exposure to these chemicals? They are hard to quantify, for sure, but in- evitably, they will be much higher to society at large. What about the heartache, stress and loss to families when cancers and neurodevelopmental pro - blems arise? Should we be known as the province that puts the aesthetics of weed -free lawns ahead of people's health? Not to mention the impacts on animals, ecosystems and waterways, which some of the other presenters will be addressing.

The second piece that seems to be commonly touted by the government is Health Canada's approval of use of cosmetic pesticide as directed by the label. I just want to draw your attention to some other submissions that call–speak to the inadequacies of the pest management regulatory agency's process. Briefly, it is risk based. That means PMRA de - cides whether the risks of exposure are acceptable. They don't say it's safe. Surely, deter mination of risk is something that families can decide. Second, they rely primarily on industry studies.

They don't consider the impacts of the chemical soup that I mentioned earlier; the fact that chemicals – cosmetic pesticide chemicals don't exist outside of all the other chemicals that we're constantly exposed to. And, third, they have a strong history of with- drawing approvals when new information comes out, and that means that people have spent years being exposed to these chemicals before the approval has been withdrawn. I just want to repeat, in conclusion, that caution from Health Canada, quote: It is good practice to reduce or eliminate any un necessary exposure to pesticides. Unquote.

Bill 22, if passed, will do the opposite. It will in - crease exposure to un necessary p esticides. Quite simply, more people will be harmed. I and the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba coali- tion, strongly urge that Bill 22 be withdrawn, and that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Anne Lindsey for your presentation. I would remind members of the com mittee, be- fore we call for questions, that the questions are in the following rotation: minister sponsoring the bill; member of the official opposi tion; and in dependent member. Are there questions for Ms. Lindsey? Mr.

Wharton: Thank you, Ms. Lindsey, for coming down tonight; really appre ciate you provi ding the information that, obviously, you and your organi - zation work hard at every single day. And certainly we ap preciate that. That's why democracy, and that's why committee, is so important; that we can understand from regular Manitobans exactly what their feelings are as we go forward provi- ding policy and legis lation for the betterment of Manitobans. One question I did have for you is–and you made a comment near your closing about risk is some thing that families can and should decide.

I think we agree with that comment, definitely. We know that we're dealing with a federally ap - proved product. I know that you had cited some areas that were in conflict of that. You also talked about some other issues with the federal requirements. Could you maybe highlight some of the areas again that you heard from the federal side that are contradictive of the 350 scientists that say that cosmetic pesticides are safe? Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Lindsey, and a reminder to those asking questions, 30 seconds to ask questions. Thank you. A.

Lindsey: I would just like to contradict your final comment, that Health Canada does not say that pesticides are saf e. In fact, I think it might even be illegal to say that pesticides are safe, but I–don't quote me on that. * (18:20) Sure, they have a lot of scientists at the PMRA. As noted, they take a risk -based approach, which

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 means they decide for us what is the acceptable risk when using chemicals that they're approving. To my mind, if there is a risk, as high lighted by the many physicians that are a part of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, of any of the illnesses and diseases that I spoke about, my choice would be to say for an unneces sary exposure, I won't take that risk. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Lindsey. Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Thank you so much for being here tonight.

I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate all the work tha t you've done in the com - munity on this important issue. You closed with a quote –just towards the end, there was a quote. I believe it was from Health Canada. I just wanted to clarify that. Could you repeat that quote again for the record? I just wanted to hear that in full. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, my error. MLA –or, sorry, Ms. Lindsey. Please, go ahead. A. Lindsey: Yes. The quote –should I repeat that, then? The quote is from Health Canada. It's a publica - tion in 2007. I think it's called pesticides in health.

The quote is: It is good practice to reduce or eliminate any unnecessary exposure to pesticides. Unquote. And so, that is a blanket exposure to pesticides that they're talking about. But I will point out that even though tha t was 2007, the kinds of cosmetic pesticides that we're talk- ing about really haven't changed since then. It's the same kind of chemicals that are still being used and, therefore, I think it is worth it to take this advice from Health Canada. Hon. Jon Ger rard (River Heights): The minister has– Mr. Chairperson: MLA, sorry, go ahead. Mr.

Gerrard: The minister has repeatedly referred to 350 scientists, but has never given out a list of these, and we suspect that a large majority of those are not involved in assessing this parti cular group of chemicals. But I think that the important point that you make is that safety for kids is im portant, and I suspect that it's not just health, but education, extra expenses, because you've got kids with learning problems, and kids with learning problems very often are frustrated, go on to be juvenile delinquents and crimes. So there's a cost in the justice system.

Has anybody really done an assessment of what the total cost is? A. Lindsey: Not that I'm aware of. I think it goes without saying that even, probably, a single person that has to be hospitalized for cancer, probably the cost for that over the course of that person's life will be in excess of any extra costs that a municipality has to incur by rejecting the use of chemicals. So, I don't–you know, it would be interest- ing to see those kinds of costs quantified. But I think common sense tells us that if we don't really need to use these substances, then why are we doing it. It makes no sense at all. Mr.

Chairperson: Time for questions has now expired. Thank you very much for the pre sentation, Ms. Lindsey. We will call the next presenter, and I will remind the MLAs present that 30 seconds is all that's allowed for questions, and we will enforce that. [interjection] Oh, we're going back? We will call Katharina Stieffenhofer, private citizen. Ms. Stieffenhofer, would you please proceed with your presentation. Katharina Stieffenhofer (Private Citizen): My name is Katharina Stieffenhofer. I a m an award - winning documentary filmmaker with an interest in environmental justice and community health.

I'm also a passionate vegetable and flower gardener, and I grow plenty of healthy foods without the use of chemical pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. I also enjoy urban and forest foraging for wild foods and medicines. I am strongly opposed to any rollbacks of the non- essential pesticide ban as proposed in Bill 22, which should be withdrawn, as it is a step backward. We des- perately need to red uce the accumulation of toxic chemicals in our environments and their harmful effects on the health of all life forms. I have been diagnosed with breast cancer twice.

And I agree with the Canadian Cancer Society's directive of a phase-out of cosmetic pesticides on golf courses; sporting facilities; home, vegetable and fruit gardens.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 Therefore, I'm asking for an expansion of the cos- metic pesticide ban rather than a rollback, including the following. Golf courses and sporting facilities: Pesticides used should be phased out of golf courses and sports facilities, especially where children often are or if they are located next to residential and public areas. Pesticides should be used as the last option, in the smallest possible amount, and only where needed to make a place usable. People should stay away from treated areas for at least 48 hours after the last amount of pesticide is applied.

Home, vegetable and fruit gardens: The use of pesticides in home or personal vegetable and fruit gardens shoul d also be phased out. Although the pesticides you use at home may be milder than those used for agriculture and you may use them less often, there is still risk. In the agricultural industry, there are usually more rules in place to reduce exposure, such as training for people who apply pesticides to properly use equip - ment that protects them, plans to reduce residue levels and pesticide drift and rules to limit access to sprayed areas.

Non-essential cosmetic pesticides should not be readily availab le to consumers, but should be locked up like prescription drugs because they pose potential health risks. Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba states the following on its website: More than 30 health and environmental organizations are appealing to the Manitoba government to maintain the province's restrictions on non- essential uses of pesticides.

The Manitoba College of Family Physicians, Manitoba Health Coalition, Manitoba Lung Association, Manitoba Public Health Association, Learning Dis abilities Assoc iation of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Humane Society are among the organizations speaking out. The groups have endorsed an open letter to Jeff Wharton, Minister of Environment , Climate and Parks, and Audrey Gordon, Minister of Health, warning that resumi ng the use of currently banned pesticides will increase health risks for Manitobans, particularly for children.

Allowing the use of riskier lawn pesticides will also increase chemical runoff into waterways, harm essential pollinators and increase risks for pets that play on treated lawns. Jeff Wharton, Minister of Environ ment, Climate and Parks, said the Province turns to Health Canada when it comes to evaluating pesticide products and all products used in the province are federally approved. Health Canada ensures that pesticide products do not present except–unacceptable risks to Canadians and the environment.

Pathways of exposure, including dietary drinking water and resi dential exposures are considered in the risk assessment. I'm quoting what Mr. Jeff Wharton said. The problem is that Health canister –Canada registers pesticides not based on safety, but on accept- able risk. My question to Health Canada: What are these acceptable risks?

Is, for example, the possible or probable dev elopment of cancer in humans an acceptable risk? * (18:30) In 2015, the World Health Organi zation's Inter- national Agency for Research on Cancer identified glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup–the world's most commonly used herbi - cide–as a probabl e human carcinogen. Yet, Health Canada still maintains that glyphosate is safe.

During research for my documentary film, From Seed to Seed, 2018, I phoned Health Canada to inquire about the scientific sources they based the safety–and I put this in quotation marks –of glyphosate on, and was told that they rely on industry -supplied data, i.e., by Monsanto and Bayer, who assure Health Canada that their product is safe. Now, that is clearly a conflict of interest. When I asked why Health Canada does not d o their own independent scientific reviews of these herbicides, I was told that would be too expensive. Think about that.

Into the Weeds, a new docu mentary film, 2022, by Jennifer Baichwal, should be mandatory viewing for anyone making policy decisions involving the herbicide glyphosate, Roundup. The film is available for free streaming on CBC Gem. This film was the opening film of Hot Docs this year in Toronto, and it also was the season opener of The Passionate Eye on CBC. Into the Weeds: Dewayne " Lee" Johnson vs. Monsanto Company follows former groundskeeper, Johnson, and his fight against Monsanto, a multi - national agro- chemical cor poration acquired by German pharmaceutical giant, Bayer, in 2018.

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 Johnson's case was the first to go to trial in a series of lawsuits involv ing tens of thousands of plaintiffs who claim that Monsanto's weed killer, Roundup, and it's other glyphosate -based herbicide, Ranger Pro, caused their cancer. Bayer maintains that it's safe to use. The docu mentary follows t he ground- breaking trial, including the release of the Monsanto papers, internal documents which reveal that, for decades, Monsanto had been influencing studies about glyphosate's potential to cause cancer.

The film introduces other plaintiffs whose lives have been upended by their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis, while also looking into the wide-spread and systemic effects of the world's most widely used herbicide. In the film, a team of lawyers gained access to internal emails that demonstrate clearly that Monsanto knew that glyphosate causes cancer, but suppressed this knowledge and tried to discredit any scientists who tried to prove that glyphosate is a carcinogen. Moreover, the film proves that Monsanto manipulated scientific research and even inf luenced the FDA to rule in their favour.

So, how much confidence should anyone have in any data provided to Health Canada by Monsanto/Bayer about the so- called safety of glyphosate? Just please let that sink in. The World Health Organi zation unit find s that 2,4-D herbicide possibly causes cancer in humans. A widely used farm chemical that is a key ingredient in a new herbicide developed by Dow AgroSciences, possibly causes cancer in humans, the World Health Organization research unit has determined in 2015. 2,4-D, one– Mr. Chairperson: My apologies, Ms. Stieffenhofer, but time has expired. [interjection] Leave? Yes.

Leave to continue? [interjection] Okay. Is there agreement for leave to continue? [Agreed] [interjection] I have to interrupt and recog nize you again, Ms. Stieffenhofer. Please continue, Ms. Stieffenhofer. K. Stieffenhofer: Thank you, thank you. I just wanted to say that 2,4-D, which was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange is also an ingredient in Killex–the herbicides Killex and PAR III, which are readily available for use by homeowners, and it is a possible human carcinogen. As –and there's evidence that it damages human cells and in a number of studies caused cancer in laboratory animals.

Yet, Health Canada maintains that 2,4-D is safe. Remember thalidomide and how the equivalent of Health Canada failed to protect Canadian citizens from severe birth defects. It took Health Canada three months after they'd been notified that the chemical had been withdrawn in Germany and England before they took it off the market. The widespread practice of pre- harvest glyph - osate desiccation seven days before harvest has increased glyphosate in our food and our environ- ment, including groundwater. Subsequently, Health Canada requested to in crease the allowable level of glyphosate in foods and drinking water.

Thankfully, the Liberal government paused this request. The European Union uses the precautionary principle, i.e., if a pesticide is not proven to be safe, it is not registered. In the EU there is no safe allowable level of pesticides in drinking water. This choice indicates the political will of legislatures to avoid risking the health of its citizens, the environment, and all life forms. It is a choice.

Hopefully, the legislatures at Health Canada and the Manitoba gov ernment will adopt the wisdom of the precautionary principle and for the safety of our children and grandchildren will choose to protect the health of Canadians and Manitobans by banning the use of cosmetic pesticides altogether. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stieffenhofer, for your presentation. I'll now call for questions from the committee. Mr. Wharton: Thank you so much, Mrs. Stieffenhofer, for your –Ms. Stieffenhofer–for your pre sentation. Very fulsome.

I appreciate the information and, as I said earlier, that's why these committee meetings are so important to hear from Manitobans. And I'm sure I speak for everyone around the table in wishing you all the best during y our health journey as well, with being a cancer survivor as well. So, I just wanted to say that we agree when you, quote, therefore I'm asking an expansion– [interjection]–oh, I'm out of time? Oh, you guys have got to stop that. Mr. Chairperson: It's pr etty fast. Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Stieffenhofer, did you want to respond to that?

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 K. Stieffenhofer: I did not understand. Could you repeat the question? I did not hear –understand the question. Just speak up a little bit, please. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, ask the question. Mr. Wharton: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll be very, very quick. We have actually –our government is expanding in Bill 22 to ensure that we are protecting the areas that you are spe cifically mentioning –playgrounds, picnic areas, dog parks, prov incial parks, munici pal playgrounds. We recognize–we, by the way, will have some of the strongest legis lation west of Ontario.

Alberta and Saskatchewan currently do not have any restrictions on the items that I just mentioned. So, I just want to get that on the record. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Stieffenhofer, please. Now you can respond. K. Stieffenhofer: Can I –oh, sorry. Thank you. Learning. But you would still allow for any homeowner to go out and to buy Roundup, glyphosate or Killex off the shelf and to use as they see fit. And what about lawn companies? Would they be allowed to use Roundup anywhere they please? * (18:40) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your answer. Ms.

Naylor: Thank you very much, Katharina, for being here tonight. And I know all the work that you've done on the environment and educating people, including me, over the last few years. I –so I want to thank you for taking the time. And I just –you referenced the–Into the Weeds, and I would also, you know, I echo that that's a really important documentary for folks to watch. And I was struck by the fact that it is leading, like, some of those lawsuits, multimillion -dollar lawsuits, are leading Health Canada to start to re -evaluate glyphosate, which I think we should be ahead of the game and not waiting for that.

I guess my question: Is there anything else you want to say about that product or that you didn't get a chance to say? K. Stieffenhofer: Thank you for that question. I really, really strongly encourage anyone think- ing about the question of cosmetic herbicides, and herbicides at all, and Roundup glyphosate in parti - cular, please take the time to watch Into the Weeds, available free for streaming on Gem CBC. And you will be, I thin k, blown away –blown away–but these are facts. They could never, ever have a documentary that can, you know, can be challenged in court.

So everything in this documen tary is true and vetted by lawyers. So that is the truth and really an eye-opener. And I hope you go and take a look at that before you make any decisions, any decisions on cosmetic pesticides. And since we are with Agri culture and Food, I think it also affects how we grow our food. Mr. Gerrard: You've talked about the link between pesticides and cancer. Is there any link between pesticides and breast cancer, for example? K. Stieffenhofer: Yes, there is a link between pesticides and breast cancer.

But my dear dad, a farmer all his life, died of pancreatic cancer in 2013, and he was a conventional farmer and had lots of contact with pesticides, and his neighbour, best friend, farmer that he farmed together with, a year before him died of cancer. So, I think it's anyone who is in close contact with these toxic chemicals, with these pes ticides, is at higher risk of contracting cancer. Mr. Chairperson: So thank you, Ms. Stieffenhofer. Time for question has expired, so thank you for your presentation. I'm going to ask the committee for leave to extend the question period to 45 seconds.

Do we have agree- ment on that? [interjection] Oh, technically, we are waiving rule 92(2)(c). Agreement to do that? [Agreed] Thank you very much for the co-operation of the committee. I will now call the next presenter. Calling Al Mackling, private citizen. Calling once again: Al Mackling, private citizen. Not here? Go to the bottom of the list. Calling Steve Rauh, private citizen. Steve Rauh, private citizen? Not in attendance. Go to the bottom of the list. Calling Glen Koroluk, Manitoba Ec o-Network. [interjection]

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 For everyone's information, then, on the commit- tee, before we begin the pre sentation, we cannot waive that rule, so 30 seconds is all you're allowed for questions. I know it's a challenge, but please try and comply. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Koroluk. And now, if you're ready, please proceed. Glen Koroluk (Manitoba Eco-Network): I'd like to address the question that was brought up previously by Honourable Jeff Wharton in regard to the extra pro- tections that were being brought in with this bill.

That may be true, but if you look at a city as–you know, the size of Winnipeg, all that area that the bill is protecting is less than 15 per cent of the area. So, the majority of land and land use in Winnipeg will be a lot of lawns, private lawns. So, it's a bit of a moot point there. Good evening. My name is Glen Koroluk, and I'm the executive director of the Manitoba Eco-Network. Since 1988, Manitoba Eco -Network has pro- moted positive environmental action by supporting people and groups in our com munity.

Our program - ming focuses on policy advocacy, engage ment and consultation processes, and developing capacity - building tools that benefit the environmental non- profit sector and our member groups. We are a public- interest environmental organi- zation seeking to promote and facilitate good environ- mental governance and the pro tection of Manitoba's environment for the benefit of current and future gen- erations. We are disappointed with Bill 22 and ask that this bill be withdrawn. It is a step backwards in a time when we know we have to reduce exposure to chemical pesticides.

There is ample evidence in the form of scientific and inde pendent peer -reviewed research that con - cludes chemical pesticides impact hum an health, the environment–especially our aquatic ecosystems –and biodiversity. In fact, Environ ment and Climate Change Canada's own website states that households use chemical pesticides and fertilizers to improve the look of their lawns and gardens. These chemicals can pollute lakes and rivers that may be sources of drink- ing water for some communities.

Chemical pesticides are also toxic to many forms of life, and can threaten beneficial species such as bees, that are im portant pollinators. That's Environment Canada. According to the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment , CAPE for short, to protect human and environ mental health and safety, the control of pests should centre on fun damental principles of public health and environmental protec- tion, including the application of the precautionary principle. And you've heard that many times already tonight. Farmer hazard pre vention, health promotion and environmental justice.

Furthermore, CAPE emphasizes that exposure to non-essential pesticides creates ad ditional costs for the province's health-care system and affects the lives of those who struggle with illnesses and condi tions associated with such pesticide exposures. And, as we've discussed already tonight, as we know, there are shortcomings as to how the Pest Management Regula tory Agency –PMRA–of Health Canada–how it registers and regulates pesticides. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency uses a risk-based approach in their assessments, and not the precautionary principle.

As pointed out by the stand- ing committee on health in their statutory review of the Pest Control Products Act, a lack of evidence is–a lack of evidence of risk is not the same thing as evidence of no risk. The onus must be on the manu- facturer to prove there are no health risks. As noted by Ecojustice Canada, the European Union achieves this balance: if proof of the product's safety is not supplied, then it would not be registered there.

For this reason and others, that is why a province, territory, municipality or Indigenous government has the legislative and regulatory authority to prohibit the use of a registered pesticide in its juris diction, or it may add more restrictive con ditions on the use of a product than those established under the Pest Manage- ment Regulatory Agency. Health Canada's Pest Management Regula tory Agency is currently undergoing a transformation process that will strengthen its oversight and its pro - tection of human health and the environment .

The transformation process will also make the PMRA more transparent to people in Canada. * (18:50) The European Union's 2020 biodiversity strategy includes proposals for illegally binding targets to reduce pesticide use and risk by 50 per cent by the year 2030, as well as a ban on the use of pesticides in protected areas and other ecologically sensitive areas.

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 As stated by the European Com mission, the proposal to reduce the use of chemical pesticides, translates their commitment to halt biodiversity loss in Europe into action. Canada must match this commit - ment and establish a legis lative framework for achieving pesticide use reduction targets. Unfortunately, Bill 22 sends Manitoba into the wrong direction. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Koroluk. We'll now have questions. Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr. Koroluk, for your pre- sentation.

Certainly, again, lots of valuable infor mation for the com mittee. And in particular, I pay special attention to your comme nt about the Health Canada Pest Manage ment Regula tory Agency, currently undergoing a transformation process that'll strengthen its oversight. Well, we couldn't agree more with that, and certainly we'll work in lockstep with the federal gov - ernment as they continue to ensure that Manitobans, particular Canadians, are safe when applying products such as cosmetic pesticides. So, certainly agree with that and I thank you for your presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Koroluk. G.

Koroluk: Was that a question? Yes, well, I hope that the Province of Manitoba is pushing for stronger legis lative framework than it's currently proposing from Bill 22, so. Ms. Naylor: Thank you so much for being here this evening and for all the work you do in the environ- ment sector. I appreciate–I think in my 30 seconds, I just want to correct this notion that this is stronger legislation. One of my concerns is that, you know, now–so, it can't be used around schools, but the munici palities can put it on the boulevards outside of schools.

Someone running a home daycare could live next door to someone spraying their lawn. What do you think about that? G. Koroluk: Well, okay. So, I think one of the –I mean, our organi zation is calling for the withdrawal of this bill. But one of the egregious aspects of this bill is that there's no remedies for people if there's an environmental injustice that occurs. So, let's say–you know, I live in the West End. I have a small lot. And both my neighbours are spraying like crazy. Let's say I have a grandmother who's old and susceptible to chemicals. And my daughter's having a baby. So (

a) I'm not being notified of them spraying. I'm right next door. There's no buffers or anything. And so that's a real problem because the people should have the right to know and they should be notified. And that whole process –you know, people have to make an informed decision. So, there's nothing in Bill 22 that does that. So, I mean, that's very problematic. Right now, there's nothing a citizen c ould do. They can't go to court. They can't fine their neighbour. It's crazy. Mr. Gerrard: I wonder if you would take that further.

What sort of remedies would you see where there is toxic effects of these cosmetic pesticides? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Oh, sorry, Mr. Koroluk. My fault. G. Koroluk: Sorry, yes. The first choice is not to use them. So, they should be banned. We should be following what's happening in the European Union. Having said that, and if that's not the approach, then we need legislation that allows citizens to go to court.

Right now, CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is before the House, and there's –you know, there's a campaign to make that bill more stronger in giving citizens the right to sue because right now, there's no legis lation in Manitoba or even at the federal level where ordinary citizens like us could take someone to court if we're being harmed. Ms. Naylor: On that note–on that line, thinking about legalities, certainly we know that compani es like the owners of Roundup–Monsanto–and others have been sued for the harms their chemicals have caused.

Do you know of any municipalities or gov ern- ments anywhere that perhaps have been sued because of bringing back or rolling back harmful legis lation like this? G. Koroluk: No, I'm not aware, but I'm sure there is.

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 I–you know, we would have to get a lawyer to check up on that. If you want to hold the bill, I could do that research if you want, get back to you. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, time has expired, I believe. Yes. Thank you very much for your presentation. Next presenter is Wendy Buelow, private citizen. And you're ready to go? Okay, please proceed with your presentation, Ms. Buelow. Wendy Buelow (Private Citizen): Okay, my name is Wendy Buelow. Thank you for the opportunity to pre- sent at this commit tee.

I'm speaking against Bill 22, the environment act on pesticide restrictions. So, along with the concerns for human health with which the others have spoken of so well, I'm a d- vocating for the insect and natural world and the biodiversity that insects need. I'm a volunteer with the David Suzuki butterfly ranger program, and to be clear, I'm not representing the foundation in any way; I'm here on my own.

But we've had lots of edu cation and scientists presenting to us for the past three years and really digging into, you know, habitat and pesticides and why we're way–you know, we're losing all our species and so on. And I've got a whole bunch of links at the very end of my presentation tape. This is –may sound alarmist, but many of you might know this already, but we are, actually, in the middle of an insect apocalypse. And here is from a few years ago, the National Geographic, it says, you'll miss them when they're gone, and we're losing them. So some stats.

We've lost 76 per cent of our flying insects in the last 27 years, and that's actually a stat from 2017 and from the Krefeld Entomological Society, and there's a peer -reviewed

article in my notes at the end. And right now 40 per cent of our insect species are actually threatened with extinction, and the reasons are climate change, habitat loss and pesticide use. And the one thing that we can have an immediate effect on to maybe turn this thing around or at least stop it somewhat would be the continued banning of the toxic pesticides and not only keeping the same rules but let's in–make stronger protections. We really need a lot stronger protec tions in our private and public spaces.

Importantly, like, the p esticides we're talking about today are for cosmetic, and that's –I'm not talk- ing about agri cultural purposes. But, like, there's a weird thing about the current law. Like, we can use pesticides in our gardens and our vegetables and flowers and things, I believe, but not on our lawn, but, like, we'd be eating, like spraying stuff on stuff we'd be eating and flowers that are attracting butterflies, and it just kind of caught me, like, anyway. I don't know if that's true or not, but I think it is. Back to the insects. Why should we care? A famous quote by E.O.

Wilson is: Insects are the little things that run the world. And without them we're kind of hooped. They have a PR problem, insects. They can look weird and possibly scary, and a lot of people don't like insects. You know, mosquitoes –ugh. But, in reality, only about 3 per cent of insects are actually con - sidered pests. The rest are beneficial. They're out there doing their thing. Some just are whatever they are; they're just living their own lives; they're not bothering us at all. * (19:00) Reasons we should protect them is ecosystem services. So, that's a selfish human reason. Insects pollinate plants.

One third of our food crop, and it's all the stuff most people like the best, like raspberries, strawberries, apples, peas, zucchinis, nuts, blue - berries, blah, blah, blah, chocolate–see, we don't grow it here, but that's a big one. That's all pollinated by bees and insects.

Here's an example of what can happen if we don't smarten up: in southwest China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and a lack of natural habitat, farmers have been forced to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots of pollen and paintbrushes from which to individually pollinate every flower, using t heir children to climb up to the highest blossoms of the fruit trees, like apples and pears. And this is part of an

article that I've got at the– cited at the end. Okay, another –insects decompose waste and organic matter. Very messy without them. We'd have, you know, just waste everywhere. Insects control pest populations, so insects control other insects. Nature in balance has predators for what we may consider pest insects in our gardens. Pests don't pick and choose the beneficial –or, pesticides don't pick and choose. Like, they're not going, that one's a pest, this one's a good one; they don't –every- thing's gone, you know, like, when you're doing the pesticide thing.

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 Insects are beautiful and inspiring. For example, the monarch butterfly and its journey. I mean, who doesn't know about that. And we do know that now, monarchs are an endangered species–or, endangered, threatened, near extinction; I'm not sure about my wording. And, No. 5, insects feed birds. And I don't know if any of you are birders, but I am. That is kind of how I got into the insect thing. But, birds don't feed their babies, like, nuts and seeds and things we might put in our little bird feeders and that. They eat larvae.

They eat insects and caterpillars and larvae and stuff like that, so they need soft food. And a chickadee may feed approximately 6,000-9,000 larvae and insects to one clutch of baby birds. So that's a lot. And so, they've got a–if somebody comes along and sprays down a tree full of, you know, undesirables, that's l ike, the food source. We lose our birds. Okay, so, in cities and non-agricultural lands, we can do something to help the insect populations. As I said, agriculture is another story.

Conventional farm- ing uses pesticides, and change can be very dif ficult financially for farmers, and maybe that's the future coming up sometime. This bylaw amendment would allow anyone to purchase and use currently banned pesticides on lawns, driveways, ditches, close to waterways, pretty much everywhere except for a few places mentioned: children's playgrounds, dog parks and prov incial parks. Some of the pesticides –I'm not going to go through them, because they did. I want to get to some- thing else.

Okay, the one pesticide I really wanted to tag, which they didn' t talk about was the 'neonicanoids' – neonics, I'll call them, and a lot of place –you know, golf courses and stuff–use them. And I talk about a possible use for cosmetic pesticides is to grow the perfect lawn, and it is a colonial idea. Lawns did not exist here, I don't believe, before colonization. They are in–considered an ideal of high status brought to North America by Europeans. And many feel –people feel that, to be a good neighbour, we should have a perfect lawn. And most lawns are made up of

an act ually invasive, like –a foreign species, an invasive species: Kentucky blue- grass, from Eurasia. Anyway, these non- native lawns need lots of care: water, mowing and then we think we need weed management, but maybe we don't. I talk about –I want to talk a little bit about golf courses in my last minute forty-three. So, my family and friends love golf. And there – every year, there's, like–I just brought–these are, like, tons and tons of chemical notices of stuff they want to use, and it's all the things that they've talked about and more. Products list cancers like non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, sarcoma.

Okay, so, here's the weird thing. On one hand, this proposed amendment will protect dogs in the dog park, but they're not going to protect golfers like my friends and family on the golf course. Like, why do dogs get the protec tion? So, I resent that. I wish we could do a little more for our golfers. And some golf courses are rising to the challenge on their own and it's working–a program called Monarchs in the Rough. And–my notes. So, I'll just jump ahead to the end. In closing, we have some pretty big global issues going on right now, and we can be working on climate change.

Goes along with global warming of the planet. Let's reframe the way we look our lands cape, see beauty and diverse landscape and –that's better suited to our climate and support wildlife. People care deeply about our large animals in crisis, such as the polar bears and the white rhinos, and let's care about the little guys, too. So, let's care about the bees and the other insects which are going extinct because of all these different things. But pesticides is a big part of it, and let's –I'd like to really see greater restrictions. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Time has expired. Thank you, Ms.

Buelow, for your presentation. Does the committee have questions for her? Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Ms. Buelow, for your pre- sentation. Certainly ap preciate understanding, again, some of the concerns that you have with respect –I know it's hard to hear –respect to bees and birds, of course. We certainly share those concerns, too, as well. And I take special note –just a comment, I only have about 10 seconds left, so just a comment, though, with golf courses: I mean, munici palities and golf

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 courses in other areas will have a choice whether they choose to use a cosmetic pesticide or not. It's not mandatory that everybody needs to go out and buy a cosmetic pesticide. So, it's just giving them more choice. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Buelow. Thank you, minister. W. Buelow: Yes, just to answer with the golf course: I agree it's a–but I would like to see–I think it's so easy to use the conventional here. Let's get our pesticides out and let's do what we've done every year, and this is what we do and this is how we manage it.

But I think it–they need a push to change. I think we need guidance. And when the government would give good, strong guidance on, you know, clamping down on this use–I mean, like, they're massive lists of stuff they use. They use everything in the book. And there's also these young workers out there – like, they're, you know, good jobs for kids. They get out there and–I kind of just hope they're managed properly, but that's what I can say. I think there's options, but I think government can be a leader. Ms. Naylor: Thank you very much, Wendy, for being here and for sharing your perspectives. I don't have a lawn.

I have a pollinator garden in my–the front of my house. So instead of lawn, from one side of the property to the other stretches my garden, and on any given summer day, there's hun - dreds, if not thousands, of pollinators in that garden. So, what should I expect to happen if the City comes along and sprays the boulevard in front of my house that's just separated by a sidewalk from the boulevard to my garden, where there's thousands of bees on a summer day? Do–like, would they be affected by that spray a few feet away? Do you know? If you don't know, that's– Mr. Chairperson: MLA–or, Ms. Buelow, please. W.

Buelow: Well, most of this stuff drifts and the bugs are–like, if you're already attracting –you've got a banquet in your yard. Sounds pretty fantastic. And, you know, not everybody can do that, but it's –when you put it in place, it's great. But you're attracting them and then these same bees that have been so happily attracted by your beautiful plants are all of a sudden going on the poison, like some sort of toxic chemical, like –I'm not sure what they would be spraying for, but it could poison them. That's all. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. I'm interested in your comments on birds.

And I'm aware that there have been drastic and very dramatic declines in some insectivores. Barn swallows are on the endangered list in some areas. Chimney swifts. I wonder if you'd comment further on the impact on birds. W. Buelow: Some of that would be habitat loss, be - cause we're losing all our big old barns and the chim- neys that these birds did colonize in.

Also, I think it's– we're–just have less and less insects, and that's their main food source. * (19:10) And so, when we're losing our insects –and espe- cially, like, I spend a lot of time in Dunnottar on the shore of Lake Winnipeg and we've got quite a good bird popula tion there. We have our barn swallows, and it's pretty wonderful. But we h ave a pretty good insect life. We're losing–we don't have our monarchs this year, for some reason, but we've got great insect life and we have so many birds there. And you come to the city and we spray for canker worms, we spray for mosquitoes.

We're got this other stuff going on and it's kind of a dead zone in Wolseley, anyway, for a lot of birds, which it shouldn't be because we have great trees there, so. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions from the committee? Thank you for your presentation. Committee will call Cameron Wilson with Neudorff North America. Is that an online –so, could Mr. Wilson turn on his camera and unmute? We seem to have you there now. We're not hear- ing you yet. Cameron Wilson (Neudorff North America): How about now? Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Are you ready to do your presentation, Mr. Wilson? C. Wilson: Yes, I am.

Just to confirm, do you have the brief that I supplied? Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we're ready to go. Please proceed with your presentation.

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 C. Wilson: Thank you for inviting me to speak on Bill 22, the e nvironmental amendment act, pesticide restrictions. My name is Cameron Wilson. I'm a graduate of the Uni versity of Manitoba, De partment of Agriculture, and a holder of several patents on low- risk pesticides. I have worked on the dev elopment of low -risk pesticides for greater than 25 years. Currently in Canada, several provinces ban or restrict the use and sale of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, including Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland-Labrador.

Their com- mon intent is to minimize adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Bill 22 significantly reverses this intent and out - come in Manitoba. My pre sentation will provide the standing committee with information so that members can make a science- based decision regarding the widespread use of almost any pesticide for cosmetic use in Manitoba. My first comment is about why provinces, US counties and many European countrie s have implemented cosmetic pesticide bans or restrictions.

Such bans and restrictions target the older synthetic herbicides that were first registered in –for use in the 1940s, '50s and '60s in Canada. These groups of pesticides, for example, 2,4 -D, are n ow known and been proven to be toxic to small animals, birds, aquatic organisms and pose a risk to human health. Many of these targeted banned herbicides are listed by the World Health Organization and, if you have my brief, you'll see in Appendix 1 the classification of this group of herbicides. These are classified as possible cancer -causing agents.

Interesting enough, they're classified in the same area as T–DDT, which we're all familiar with. The intent of cosmetic pesticide bans is twofold: to reduce the levels of these substances in our environ- ment, and to limit the exposure and risk of these substances to people, especially children. Limiting uses of pesticides of concern does work. Ontario implemented a province-wide cosmetic pesti- cide ban in April, 2009.

In 2014 an assessment study reported a significant decline of the presence in cos - metic pesticides in surface waters ranging from 16 to 92 per cent, and the quote is it took–Todd and Struger 2014. If Bill 22 is passed and the result –the result will be increased and widespread exposure through out Manitoba of many of these older, high-risk herbicides for the sole purpose of applying them to lawns and urban boulevards. The lower risk herbicides are readily available and already allowed under the current environmental act. The impact of Bill 22 is significant.

It introduces the widespread use of the high- risk pesticides for cosmetic purposes. Bill 22 is not needed. My second comment relates to the infor mation presented on March 14t h of this year at the gov ern- ment's news conference, announcing the introduction of Bill 22. First, reference was made to a public con - sultation under taken in 2016, and the proposed amendments in Bill 22 are based largely on that survey conducted, now six years ago. However, in that survey, only 15 per cent of the respondents reported that they had a basic or full understanding of the issues of pesticides.

In other words, 85 per cent of re - spondents did not have any–have even a basic under- standing of the issue. Second, as the news conference–at the same news conference, the public was told that low -risk pesti - cides currently allowed for cosmetic use are too expensive and ineffective. Those comments are dis - puted. Regarding cost, when new innovative herbi- cides first come into market, the price may be relatively higher due to development, field testing and registration requirements, especially when compared with herbicides developed 60 or 70 years ago.

Typically, the longer a product is on the marketplace, the price decreases. The infor mation below, and it'll be in your handout, show a price comparison for typical homeowner products. In figure 1 you'll see, this is from Home Depot in Winnipeg in July, that Killex, which is a conventional herbicide, Weed B Gon is a low -risk, in this case the Weed B Gon is actually a little bit cheaper in the 5-litre size, and in the 1-litre concentrate the synthetic is slightly cheaper. So you can see they're very similar in price.

In some cases, a new lower risk pesticide such as Weed B Gon is actually less expensive than the synthetic counterpart, as I mentioned. In other cases, a new herbicide may have a higher cost, but the difference in cost for the average- sized lawn is not substantive. In discussing cost, proponents of Bill 22 have not mentioned that herbicide costs for profes - sional lawn-care operators are only one component of their fee. In actuality, labour is the No. 1 cost of the – of most lawn -care operators, not the cost of the herbicide.

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 Regarding performance, Health Canada requires field tests before a herbicide is approved for use. Field trials worldwide have demonstrated that new lower risk herbicides such as Fiesta are effective in con - trolling weeds in lawns. Such alternate pesticides also have other multiple advantages: no strong chemical smell, low-to-no toxicity to fish and mammals and no surface water concerns.

If you look at your briefing note, figures 2 and 3, you'll see some turf sprayed with Fiesta and untreated, so you can clearly see t hat after two applications it truly does work. And in figure 3 there's a graph showing Fiesta compared to a conven- tional three-way herbicide and untreated, and you'll actually see that the low -risk product is faster, and after two applications at 56 days they have equal activity. And this was done on dandelions in turf. I'll continue. Third, on March 14th, the public was told, if Health Canada has approved a pesticide, that it is deemed safe for use in Manitoba.

Again, this com- ment requires clarification. First, Health Canada does not ever deem or proclaim a pesticide as safe. Health Canada sets the bare minimum standard for how a pesticide can be used in Canada and identifies any danger or concerns on the approved label. The example below is a label of a herbicide that Manitoba proposes under Bill 22 amendment pro - vides for use in Manitoba. This herbicide contains three herbicide active ingredients. This product has a poison statement on the front label and the poison statement is one of the worst toxic classifications given by Health Canada.

See figures 4 and 5 of my brief. This product, to be allowed under Bill 22, also includes an environmental hazard statement. Warning specified: toxic to small wild animals, birds and aqua- tic organisms. Available alternate low-risk pesticides currently already allowed under the environmental act have no to low toxicity to non- target organisms.

Considering the number of fish- bearing rivers and lakes in Manitoba, introducing back the old herbicides have great potential over time to damage the sports and commercial fishing industries of Manitoba. * (19:20) Also consid ering the frequent heavy rains and flooding, like in 2022 over southern Manitoba, intro- ducing back unknown and unregulated quantities of high-risk pesticides in Manitoba for only cosmetic purposes poses a great and unneces sary risk to local communities. Also consider home daycares, and this was mentioned earlier.

Think about how many children are cared for in home daycares throughout the province. What if the neighbour to your daycare proceeds to spray their lawn with a pesticide that is currently not allowed, and the spray drifts to your daycare and your garden. How will Manitoba police this? If a child at a daycare gets sick, who's liable? What are the con sequences when a pesticide ap - plicator sprays a boulevard near a school with a herbicide with a poison label? Should a City of Winnipeg or Portage la Prairie or Brandon employee be forced to spray these older herbicides if their use is allowed?

I encourage the Standing Com mittee members and Manitoba government to consider the questions of care, com munity and liability. It is our collective responsibility and duty to protect our children and families, our elderly, pets, pesticide applicators, waterways, animal life and sustaining environments as best we can with science, intellect and good sense. If Bill 22 is approved, the widespread application of high-risk chemical pesticides will be allowed and we–and will occur.

If Bill 22 is approved, Manitoba will be the only jurisdiction in the world that I am aware of to rescind its allowable cosmetic pesticide uses to once again allow herbicides of concern, setting a bad precedent. I ask the committee and the Manitoba government to review and rethink the proposed amendments in Bill 22. Bill 22 is flawed. It is not based on accurate understanding of pesticide composition and federal regulation. Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired, Mr. Wilson. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Wilson. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr.

Wilson, for present - ing tonight and presenting under this –well, this new COVID–post-COVID way, of course. We're still doing it through Zoom and T eams, so it's great that you can join us from wherever you are tonight. So, welcome and thank you. And I guess just a quick comment: Have you had the opportunity to go through the bill page by page and line by line? C. Wilson: Yes, I have looked through the bill. An Honourable Member: Follow up?

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 Mr. Chairperson: I got to go around. Ms. Naylor: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I really ap pre- ciate your comments and the amount of knowledge and understanding that you have about these products. I know you got cut off at the end, so I'm going to use my question to allow you to finish whatever you were saying at the end. C. Wilson: Yes. Sorry, thank you. It is–my–I was finishing with: Bill 22 is flawed. It is not based on accurate understanding of pesticide composition and the federal regulation, and it does not benefit the majority of Manitobans.

Bill 22 should not be approved. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gerrard: You're very clear that the bill can result in the widespread use of high-risk pesticides. I just want you to help us, once more talk about why these would be high-risk pesticides. C. Wilson: As already demon strated in other pro- vinces, US counties and countries, they deter mined that the risk of exposure, in particular to children and waterways, of these parti cular group of herbicides is of concern. We know this already.

As I mentioned already, this would be the first jurisdiction in the world that we're aware of to go backwards on this. As it says right on the label, toxic to fish, toxic to mammals, toxic to birds. Mr. Wharton: Over 60 per cent of respondents said that the current restrictions were too strict, and over 70 per cent wanted to see them reduced or rescinded. I guess my question to you, sir, Mr.

Wilson, is: What do you tell –as VP of operations for Neudorff America, what do you tell 137 municipalities in Manitoba that are applying four to five times more product at four to five times more the rate over the last six years? C. Wilson: I would challenge that they actually have not been applying products and probably will not in the future because of labour shortages and labour costs. That –this survey was, again, based on 15 per cent people having a basic understanding of the survey. Mr. Chairperson: Does the co mmittee have any further questions? Mr. Wharton: Again, thank you, Mr. Wilson.

And, again, we would agree that it is policy makers and gov ernments that should be at the table providing the best science and the best information to their citizens o n any area, whether it be Health Canada-approved food products, drugs, vitamins, children's toys, vaccines, alcohol, cannabis or car seats. Certainly, I ap preciate your time tonight, Mr. Wilson, and look forward to any further comments you may have. C. Wilson: Thank you for the time. And as you know, you just mentioned it, provinces determine the uses of some of the areas you've mentioned.

And again, I'll just end with what has been deter- mined by the World Health Organi zation and other municipalities and other counties and countries. Mr. Chairperson: Less than a minute less. Ms. Naylor: I'm just going to repeat the question I asked someone earlier about the risks of drift. What are the risks of drift? Like, how far do these products drift when they're sprayed on lawns or they're sprayed outside of schools or they're sprayed in municipal parks? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wilson, 30 seconds. C.

Wilson: The risk of drift is a function of how strong the wind is, and it will harm all non -target broadleaf plants. So, your pollinator garden, if you have broadleaf flowers, they will be damaged. Trees will be damaged. Drift to people that don't wear respirators will occur, and again, to the daycare kids next to a homeowner spraying. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Time has expired. We will call the next presenter, which is Nicolas Sourisseau, private citizen. Mr. Sourisseau, I have your name correct? Yanik Sourisseau (Private Citizen): It's Sourisseau. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, and when you'r e ready, please begin your presentation. Y. Sourisseau: Hello, my name is Yanik Sourisseau. I am an apolitical husband and father of two school - age children. I have lived in Winnipeg and rural Manitoba my entire life and was very dismayed to hear of the proposed changes. I felt compelled to come

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 forward today to ask you to reconsider this amend- ment, without any bias to any party or any way of thinking, merely the consideration of what is good for children, our loved ones and our pets. During the previous reading of Bill 22, there were a combination of arguments for these amendments that, when placed side by side seemed logical and compelling but in reality, none of which are valid in this case.

Firstly, and it –I struggle with the audience, I apologize, but these changes have nothing to do with agriculture, despite the great arguments made by some of the other speakers. And it seems inappropriate and confusing to discuss amending these laws in the context of food production and agri culture, when the discussion and proposed amendments are regarding the cosmetic use of these chemicals, of which there is growing controversy.

That said, if the desire is to associate with agricul- ture, I also encourage you to watch The Passionate Eye documentary, Into the Weeds, from CBC, where farmers acknowledge the risks associated with pesti- cides, referring to lymphoma as a farmer's disease and how they choose to live with it as a means to an end in making a living. Secondly, the argument for the challenge s faced by municipalities to manage weed control on public property, like shoulders, parks and boulevards, is very flawed.

I was easily able to find numerous references to rural munici palities where they can –they are allowed to submit for allowances for land manage- ment under the Pesticide Use Permit program, which they do. That means there is nothing stopping them from using anything they want with just a little planning and prior notice.

Thirdly, the paper-based survey, with limited dis- tribution and uptake, that has been referenced by this administration with 70 per cent support for these amendments, was conducted in 2016, six years ago, four years before a global pandemic highlighted the weakness of our medical system, the fragility of our planet's ecosystem and a sig nificant portion of our population voiced strong concerns over the credibility of Health Canada. * (19:30) It would seem only logical to consider re - submitting the survey again, notwithstanding the fact that there are thousands of new homeowners, tax- payers and voters added to Manitoba since the survey was conducted.

Don't they deserve a say? Finally, the strongest argument used by this administration for these changes has been Health Canada's position on these chemicals as safe, again, as if it's absurd for Manitobans to have thoughts that might not align with Health Canada. Consid ering the current political climate brought on by the pandemic, it feels very ironic that I am demating this position, this current administration. That said, when Health Canada modifies its posi- tions on a chemical, it does so after there is so much overwhelming data, it would be criminal not to pivot.

When it does, there is nothing that can be done for the years that it was already used. In the 1990s, Bisphenol A was safe in baby bottles until it wasn't. DDT was a safe insecticide until it wasn't. It took grassroots citizens and ecologists to start raising concerns about DDT. These concerns were largely discounted until they weren't. And it was confirmed to be a carcinogen and an endocrine dis - rupter that accumulates in animal fat cells and is found in human breast milk to this day, despite being banned in the '70s. Mr.

Chair, 2,4-D, one of the chemicals you plan to allow, found in Killex and PAR III and a favourite of the lawn -care com munity was classified as pro - bably carcinogenic in 2015 by none other than the World Health Organi zation. You may not be aware that it was created during World War II for chemical warfare and used heavi ly during the Vietnam War conflict. It gives me no comfort to know that it's been watered down for residential use. Another good one, chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide that has been improved for use since the 1960s.

It is being used as we speak by the City of Winnipeg to combat Dutch elm disease. A little trivia, this chemical was designed by the Nazis as part of their chemical warfare arsenal. Chlorpyrifos has finally been concluded to be acutely toxic and associated with neuro -developmental harms in chil - dren. Prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower birth rate, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders and delayed motor dev- elopment. Health Canada has only recently suspended all licences for purchase of all variants of this chemi- cal as of the end of this year.

And we're still allowed to use it for one more year, luckily. What I'm trying to illustrate is that Health Canada-approved does not mean safe. Unlike cos - metics and pharmaceuticals, agrichemical companies are not required to provide sufficient evidence that agricultural chemicals are safe to intro duce in the

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 environment before they can be sold. That approach is, of course, as you've heard many times, the pre - cautionary principle. There is enough rese arch in - dicating that the health and environmental problems associated with these products are cause for concern and more than enough evidence to indicate that we should not be cavalier about their use. Further to this, Health Canada's conclusions rely almost entirely on industry-funded studies.

This data's typically not made available for public viewing or for peer review, which is normal in other scientific research. However, in agrichemicals, this information is considered proprietary and therefore protected. Frustratingly, these studies are rarely, if ever, con - ducted in concert with other chemicals such as already present in the soil, air or waterways. Nor do they consider the adjuvants that are part of larger cocktails when they will be used, and t hey are almost never considered for their impact over the long term.

And chemicals find themselves in unanticipated locations through drift or migration, like on our pets or in our household dust. On top of that, while there is an ex pectation of impartiality, in order for a chemical to be restricted, Health Canada has the politically sensitive challenge of weighing the financial burden to industry over the environment and human health. Even if they do move to restrict chemicals actively used in agriculture, they know they will face legal challenges and appeals from the agrichemical industry.

So, for the most part, as previously stated, Health Canada has only required products be taken off the market after decades of use have revealed undeniable harm to humans or the environment. This means you and I are the test subjects for all of these chemicals. For the purposes of simply protecting our children and pets in their yards and their neighbourhoods, the Province does not have these same challenges. We're only talking about restricting non- agricultural cos - metic use of these chemicals. Do you really, really want to be the first province to repeal our cosmetic pesticide ban?

What will the Province do if and when Health Canada does change their position on something like 2,4-D? Do you–you leave the Province exposed to litigation by every Manitoban affected by a cor responding illness. The lawsuits that continue to plague Bayer-Monsanto over glyphosate have reached over $11 billion and count- ing, with over 30,000 lawsuits pending. By reversing a law that protects people, you become an accomplice. Is that the legacy you're striving for? What we can do is recognize that these chemicals don't need to be used to maintain an impossible standard on lawns a nd boulevards.

This concept of pristine monocultures comes from a climate that doesn't exist here. This may be necessary in modern farming practices; this is not the debate. But it has no justification on cosmetic surfaces. In conclusion, our gov ernment has elected to represent and act in the best interests of all of its people, not just populism. It's not just about an opinion of outspoken minority of landowners. It's there to create environmental and health regulations that pro- tect life. Please, pl ease don't rubber stamp this. I'm only asking for some vision and integrity from our government. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your pre sentation, Mr. Sourisseau. Before we go on to questions, we also have on our list a Yanik Sourisseau. Is that you as well? Y. Sourisseau: Yes. Sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you. We will strike that one. Now, questions from the committee? Mr. Wharton: A comment, Mr. Chair, if I may. And thank you, Mr. Sourisseau, for your pre sentation. Greatly appreciate it. And one area that stuck out just near the end of your pre sentation was about Health Canada.

And, again, the Manitoba Eco-Network had made the com- ment, as well, of a stronger regula tory framework being looked at now when it comes to cosmetic pesti- cides. Certainly, our govern ment will definitely follow what the federal government obviously deems safe as they continue to go through that rigorous process. So, I can tell you today that that's exactly what we'll continue to do, is to follow the science. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Wilson, would you like to respond to that? [interjection] Oh, I'm sorry. I–Mr. Sourisseau. Y. Sourisseau: I would like to respond.

Actually, and the point that I've been trying to drive home is that Health Canada's account ability is

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 almost unilaterally towards agriculture, and the com- panies that market those products and lobby for those products are focused almost entirely on agriculture. And their concern is any form of bans are a slippery slope from those companies, and it's a chal - lenge for Health Canada to look at the narrow focus of simply landscaping. And that is more the juris dic- tion of municipalities and provinces. And that's what I'm asking for. Ms. Naylor: Thank you very much for your presenta- tion. It was quite informative.

And you noted something–a note that I made here about Health Canada's studies on pesticides. And you said something that I wasn't previously aware of–that none of these studies are peer -reviewed. And when I think about science, I know that studies that aren't peer-reviewed aren't meaningful –aren't really mean - ingful in science. So can you just elaborate on that a little bit more because I think our gov ernment members need to understand the difference? Y.

Sourisseau: So, one of the things, for example, that the Monsanto Papers revealed is that many of the– even ones that are presented as peer-reviewed always have a thread back to the agrichemical companies, and so that there is literally no one g etting to actually review and have their opinion valued who isn't already vetted and approved. And again, that's for public record. If–anecdotal- ly, they haven't officially proven glyphosate is bad; they've proven Monsanto is evil, and that's why they're losing all their lawsuits.

So that's the issue with reading their papers; it's not that–if we could already prove it was banned, then it'd be banned all over the globe. But they can prove they are evil, and that's why they're losing all of their lawsuits. Mr. Gerrard: You talked early on about the risks particularly to children from the use of some of these cosmetic pesticides. * (19:40) I wonder if you'd expand a little bit on that? Y. Sourisseau: Honestly, I think that that probably isn't appropriate for myself to do that. I'm neither a scientist or an agricul ture professional.

My infor ma- tion is accumulated by very intelligent, smart people, like some of the speakers here, that have made a career and a near -lifetime of educating them selves and learning about these things. But I will say that the data is there. It is easily found. It is easily sourced, and these are not on sketchy, dark websites. These are not clandestine organizations presenting this infor mation. And it's there for the people that want to learn about it. Mr. Chairperson: Does the committee have any fur- ther questions for Mr. Sourisseau? Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Sourisseau. Committee now calls Troy B.

Bailey, private citizen. Mr. Bailey? Go to the bottom of the list. Committee now calls Vicki Burns, private citizen. Oh, a written submission has been received from Vicki Burns, a private citizen, who wished to present but was unable to be here this evening. Ms. Burns has provided a written submission, which will now be distributed to all members. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] That presentation will be distributed. Committee now calls David Hinton, Manitoba nursery and landscape association.

Do you have a pre- sentation to have distributed as well? David Hinton (Manitoba Nursery Landscape Association): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Staff will do that, and when you are ready to do your presentation, you can begin. D. Hinton: Good evening, everyone. It's great to be here, and I think we have, you know, a very important topic here that we need to talk about, and I really ap - preciate the opportunity to do this.

My name is David Hinton, and I would like to just give the Manitoba Nursery Landscape Association's opinions and recommendations on this important sub- ject regarding the use of herbicides on lawns in Manitoba. We are pleased that the gov ernment has decided to clarify and update the regula tions regarding the products used to protect the health of Manitoba's landscapes. The current legis lation is arbitrary, con - fusing and not well understood. It is also unenforce - able, and compliance with the current regula tions is really low. Better public po licy that works for all

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 Manitobans is necessary, and these changes are long overdue. Just a little bit about the Manitoba Nursery Landscape Association. Since 1958, the MBNLA has represented the horticulture profession in Manitoba. Our members grow, install, maintain the green infra- structure in the province. Member businesses include garden centres, greenhouses, landscape install and maintenance contractors, tree- care companies, nur - series and lawn-care companies.

We believe we have a unique understanding of this issue, as we work with Manitobans every day to improve and maintain their landscapes. Our members are directly affected by the regula- tions introduced by the previous government, and we applaud the changes that the government is proposing. I have personally been involved with the MBNLA since 2004 and served many roles over the years, including president. I've also sat on the board of the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association as the Manitoba rep. The CNLA, the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association, represents over 4,000 horti - cultural businesses across Canada.

I've been around the bend with everybody, and I've seen what's happened in many of the provinces across Canada. So, the current situation: you know, Manitobans take great pr ide in their homes and busi nesses. You can just visit any home im provement store on a Saturday morning, you'll find countless homeowners looking for products and services to improve their corner of the world. The landscape is a natural extension of the home, and many property owners consider the area outside their house just as, or even more im portant than, what's on the inside. And we know Manitobans want a choice.

MBNLA delivered over 15,000 postcards to the pre - vious government back in 2013 from Manitobans who do not want the province to restrict their ability to control weeds on their lawns. And since 2015, when the regula tions came into effect, homeowners have been increasingly frustrated with their lack of ability to maintain their properties. Trees, shrubs, flowers, turf grass are important in many ways. They are not cosmetic, but actually have a very positive environ mental impact. Healthy land - scapes produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide, reduce runoff and cool the surrounding areas.

Maintenance of these areas is vital to maximize these benefits, and weed-control products play an important role in helping–keeping these areas healthy. The previous gov ernment introduced legislation that allows the use of only certain weed -control pro- ducts on lawns surrounding our homes, busi nesses and public places. The current rules are arbitrary and confusing, and have created many problems for our association members. Property owners are not satisfied with the ap - proved tools because of the increased cost, and the reduced effectiveness.

The following issues are exper- ienced by our members every day in Manitoba. So, No. 1, retailers who have to enforce the law– so, many of these products are sold at, you know, hardware stores–think Canadian Tire–and many of the staff there are young, part -time students, and they're the ones who are enforcing this law. So when an old, crusty guy like me goes in there and says, hey, I need some Killex for my garden, okay, okay, you can have it, it's for your garden, here you go, and out the store I go. Right? So, that's not a good way to enforce these regula- tions, right?

Having a part-time, 16-year-old kid deter- mining who's going to get the products or not. In the lawn care–in the lawn maintenance side of things, we're seeing many, many people just taking their lawns completely out. So now, where we used to have plants and areas for pollinators and all those beneficial insects that we've been hearing about, now it's just rock. So, the rock looks okay for a little while, but then the weeds start to grow in it as well. And then when it rains, none of the water is absorbed into that rock.

It all runs off into our sewers, making it, you know, more expensive for cities and municipalities to handle all that water. One of the things with these approved products is that they must be applied at much higher rates, and we have to use them so much more often. So it –we're we're actually using a lot more pesticides with these products than we used to, right? The quantitie s are through the roof, and you have to use them over and over and over again to kind of get any kind of results that people are happy with. One of the big things, too, is the lack of enforce - ment.

And we don't fault the province for this, but it's just basically impossible to enforce these rules. So businesses and homeowners are hiring maintenance

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 companies that are breaking the law and applying traditional weed controls. The unlevel playing field that this has created is a huge disadvantage for legitimate lawn -care companies who are applying approved products because of all the increased costs. Maintenance companies can now provide better results at a lower cost by choosing to break the law. And it's severely hurt businesses who follow the rules. What used to be a well -run industry, well -regulated industry, is now just a free-for-all out there.

And many companies have gone underground, applying un- approved products for much less cost and getting better results. The big reason that companies are doing that is because there are very few cost-effective alternatives. There's really only one, from Neudorff, who made a presentation earlier tonight. They have a lot to lose, I guess, if, you know, the market's opened up here. Because they are the only suppl ier, and the cost of their products is extremely high. Believe me, I know. There are limited tools.

The allowed list–you know, there's quite a few products on this allowed list, but for most of it–this regulation is about weed control on lawns. So we don't use glyphosate or Roundup or any of these products that have been mentioned earlier today. Those products kill everything. If it's green, it dies. * (19:50) So, in the lawn- care busi ness, and what home - owners are concerned about, are getting rid of , typically, broad- leaf weeds, the thistles, the dandelions, the plantain, that sort of thing that are polluting their lawns. That's what they want to get rid of.

Nobody is using glyphosate on areas like that at all. I mean, it's not really an issue in the lawn-care business. But most of these products that are allowed for use on lawns, as I said, kill all the plants, that –these are all these approved products. But really, there's just one on the list that is effective, or somewhat effective on broad-leaf weeds, and the list has not been updated since 2014.

And that's one of the big things that this current regulation really inhibit any kind of dev elopment of new products because the manufacturers are going to look at it and say okay, if it's not on the list, we can't sell it in Manitoba. We can't sell it in Ontario. So there's no market; there's no reason to go through any kind of registration cost with Health Canada, which typically would take you, you know, 10 years, 15 to 20 million dollars, I think, is the number that is bandied–thrown around to get a product to market now. So, it costs a huge amount of money to do it.

And if it's not on the approved list, there's no chance of selling it here in Manitoba, so there's no reason to go through it. So, it really limits the amount of products that are coming down the pipe. Even if they are really low-risk, really good products –no chance in Manitoba. So, we think– MBNLA really believes that the decision to rely on Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency for science-based regulation is the way to go here. It's really the only logical choice. They're the experts. They make sure that the products are safe.

We need to get Health Canada at this table here to justify and defend them selves against t he onslaught of criticism that they've taken here. But I believe that their best interest is in making sure that, you know, the products are safe for Manitobans and for everybody in Canada. Pesticides are vital for a safe and healthy society. As you're aw are, pesticides are used through out the country in many– Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired, Mr. Hinton. Thank you very much for your presentation. Does the com mittee have any questions for the presenter? Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr.

Hinton, for providing us the infor mation tonight from Manitoba Nursery Landscape Association. Certainly it's –this process in com mittee and everybody around the committee table respect all our presenters, and we need to hear all sides of the issue, and I thank you for provi ding the table tonight the other side of the issue, as well. And certainly, we respect both and certainly, this helps inform policy as we go forward, so I appreciate the time. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hinton. You're –any com - ments, Mr. Hinton? No? Okay. Ms. Naylor: Thank you for you presentation.

One thing that you mentioned is that you network with other landscapers around the country, so can you tell me why maintenance companies from almost every BC munici pality and all six provinces east of Manitoba are able to be success ful despite strong

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 pesticide bans, but Manitoba landscapers can't be suc- cessful with these same regulations. Why is that? D. Hinton: We're using these restrictive products–or, the approved products. The cost is a l ot more for homeowners to do that. We have to apply a lot more product and everywhere, in all provinces, there's a lot of underground activity happening, right? So, the enforcement is very difficult, and as legit- imate companies are trying to do the ri ght thing, use the right products.

It's very difficult to have, you know, a landscaper with a backpack in his trailer offering to do it for half the price or a quarter of the price. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, the–just an extension of the last question. I mean, this is one jurisdiction where there's a lot of backpedalling from what the original legis lation was, and yet in other juris dictions people have been able to manage with the legislation without having all the problems that you're talking about. D. Hinton: Those problems exist in all the other juris- dictions–absolutely. We were promised a made -in- Manitoba solution here in 2014.

That did not really happen. We just copied, you know, basically, the list from Ontario. The approved list was put together behind closed doors. I'm not sure –they didn't really rely on Health Canada. Some of the products on that approved list are pretty dangerous–skin burns. You know, they're not friendly products, but they're on that list. So I'm not sure how the list was put together, but these problems are across the board. Like, these are not just Manitoba specific. Everywhere where this type of legislation has come in and they have ignored Health Canada, this is the result. Mr. Johnson: Thanks again, Mr.

Hinton. Could you–the legislation came in in 2014. Can you provide us with a little bit more detail on some of the challenges? We've heard in a written statement from AMM tonight about some of the challenges they've had with the current legislation. Could you provide the table some more informa- tion, maybe a deeper dive, per se, on some of the challenges you've found in the past six years? D. Hinton: I'd be happy to, yes. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hinton–sorry. D. Hinton: So, further challenges. You know, the lack of public education is huge.

We were promised that, you know, there'd be a big rollout of infor mation for the public out there, but really, most people are totally confused on what they can do, where they can buy products, you know. And to have all those phone calls coming into all the different lawn care companies' offices and every- body's trying to explain these rules, it's very difficult. It's painful trying to educate homeowners on what can be done, what should be done, you know, when you can use a product. It's okay to use it in your garden, but don't turn around 180 degrees and spray it on your lawn. That's against the law.

Like, completely arbitrary rules like that are very difficult for the public to understand, and they just don't get it. They don't understand it and they don't follow them. Mr. Chairperson: MLA Wiebe, there's less than 30 seconds. Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I appreciate that and I want to thank you, Mr. Hinton, for your presentation. You know, I walk around the neighbourhood. I see, you know, not to pick out any companies in parti- cular, but Lawn Man or Weed Man signs all over. It looked like really nice lawns. These are lawns that are being–having this current– Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired. Mr.

Wiebe: Can I finish my question? Mr. Chairperson: Leave to finish the question or comment? [Agreed] Okay. Follow the rules. Leave for Mr. Wiebe to conclude his question and leave for the– Mr. Wiebe: I assure the minister we're just asking the presenter a question. So my question s imply is: you focused in on the fact that the list of approved products was frozen in 2014, as you put it. Obviously, other jurisdictions are, you know, doing this kind of similar legislation. Are other products out there? If we were to update that list at this point, would that make more sense?

Again, you're, you know, it seems like in your industry, folks want to follow the rules; they want to do what's right and they want to produce nice lawns, so–

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 D. Hinton: Yes. For the broadleaf we control in lawns there is, what–that's it; that's all there is. Again, it has to be Health Canada approved, right. So the manu- facturer has to go through that registration process, and right now there is just one. So, yes, we get results with it. It costs a lot of money and there is a lot of pesticide application to get those results. Many reapplications, and the quantity that we have to apply to get those results is so much higher than with the traditional products. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Time for questions has expired. Thank you, Mr. Hinton, for your presentation. D. Hinton: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: I would call Josh Brandon, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. He will go to the bottom of the list. Go down the list –[interjection]–oh, Josh is right there. Okay. We're going to bring him out –we have Mr. Brandon there now. Can we see and hear you well enough? * (20:00) Josh Brandon (Social Planning Counc il of Winnipeg): Hello. Can you hear me? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we can. When you're ready, please proceed, Mr. Brandon. J.

Brandon: Thank you for the opportunity to present here today on Bill 22, The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions). I'm presenting on behalf of the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. We're a non-profit organization. For over 100 years, we've been working for better lives for Winnipeggers and Manitobans to build sus - tainable com munities that are caring, just and equitable. I'm presenting today because regulating non- essential uses of pesticides is an i mportant way to build healthier lives and protect the environment we all share.

In 2014, Manitoba instituted the existing legis - lation to reduce the use of cosmetic pesticides in Manitoba. The legislation restricted the use of pesti- cides for non- agricultural purposes on lawn and associated areas. At the time, polling by Probe Research found that 60 per cent of Manitobans supported these restrictions. And at Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, we supported that legislation also because of the ri sks to children and pets where they are most likely to be exposed, lawns or areas where family members play. These are not areas where we should be applying potentially toxic pesticides.

These uses also post un- necessary risks to our environment , particularly our waterways. So why do we need restrictions on pesticides? The current ban represents sound, science -based public policy. Inde pendent, peer -reviewed evidence has established that serious health risks are associated with human exposure to chemical pesticides.

Assess- ments of pesticide health risks have been reported in four systemic analyses of peer -reviewed health studies, including one by the Ontario College of Family Physicians in 2012 that examined 142 studies and another by the PEI public health office in 2015 that reviewed 365 studies.

This body of research indicates that health risks associated with exposure to pesticides includes a range of harmful impacts affecting adults, such as diabetes, cancer, neurological disorders, as well as adverse reproductive neurological dev elopment and respiratory outcomes that are parti cularly significant for children, pregnant women and newborns. When cosmetic pesticides are a source of such exposure, these are preventable harms. The province-wide opinion poll in 2015 found a clear majority of respondents favoured restricting non-essential uses of pesticides.

Understandably, people want to live in healthy neighbourhoods where they and their children are not exposed to avoidable pesticide health risks. In addition to human health benefits, restricting non-essential uses of pesticides helps protect the health of pests, reduce risks for pollinating insects, reduces pesticide con tamination of waterways and preserves biodiversity. We've heard from the govern ment about the baseline set by Health Canada. The baselines that Health Canada sets are minimum standards for the uses of pesticides.

Nothing in Health Canada's regula- tions prevents provinces from introducing higher pro- tections for their r esidents and constituents. In fact, the majority of provinces have done so. So the question each of you must ask yourself when consid ering this legis lation: Does Manitoba wish to be among the minority of juris dictions that

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 have reduced protections for your constituents to the federally regulated minimum? The bill we are con sidering today will unneces - sarily weaken pro tections Manitobans depend on. In consideration of these points, we recommend that the bill to amend The Environment Act regarding the pesticide restrictions be withdrawn. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Brandon, for your presentation. Would members of the com mittee like to ask questions? Mr.

Johnson: If yourself and the Social Planning Council of Wi nnipeg don't agree with the federal regulations, have you and your group had success with presentations to modify Health Canada's approved list? J. Brandon: Thank you, Minister. I have had the oppor tunity to present on several occasions to Health Canada and the PMRA about pesticide regulation, and we would welcome changes in the review process that are under way.

And, as some of my colleagues before have noted, we welcome the government of Manitobans' efforts to improve those regulations, and we hope that they will be presenting with us to strengthen those regulations. But, as I said, nothing will prevent the Province of–nothing in current regula tions prevents the Province from introducing higher protections for resi- dents and constituents. There have been a number of legal cases starting at–in the case of Hudson, Quebec, saying that munici- palities have that right also.

Provinces definitely have that right, and that's why the majority of provinces have regulations and standards that are higher than the federally regulated minimums. Ms. Naylor: Thank you, Josh–oh, I'm going to look at the camera, I–instead of your face over there–thank you for presenting here tonight. And I know that there was a press release, I believe, back in the spring, that your group did with a number of other organizations. What were some of the other organizations who have spoken out repeatedly against the changes to this legislation? J. Brandon: Thank you, Ms. Naylor.

We were in part nership with a coalition of 30 health and environmental organizations, including the Humane Society, Green Action Centre, but also important health organi zations like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association. So this is a wide-ranging coalition of groups that recognize the harms to human health and the environ- ment of allowing non-essential uses of pesticides. And I hope that the gov ernment listens to those experts about the potential harms and risks of weak- ening existing regulations. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation.

One of the things that the 30 groups that you're involved with have emphasized is the adverse effects on neurodevelopmental aspects of children. I wonder if you would elaborate a little bit more on that? J. Brandon: Thank you for that question. Now, I think we all have children that are close to us that we care about, and any risks of neurological developments would be particularly concerning for all of us.

You know, I'm not a scientist that could–or, a medical expert that can talk specific ally about what those neurological disorders are, and, you know –but the–how they progress, but I know that any risk in those areas would be a red flag for me and for everyone in our community, I think. This–for the sa ke of having fewer dandelions in your yard, why would you put the health of children at risk, particularly when some of these risks are so concerning and disturbing? Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions? Thirty seconds remaining. Thank you, Mr. Brandon, for your presentation. Time has expired? Yes.

We'll go back to the top of the list and call the people that were called previously. Margaret Friesen, private citizen? * (20:10) Shirley Forsyth –[interjection]–okay, Margaret Friesen will now be removed from the list. Shirley Forsyth, private citizen? Shirley Forsyth will be removed –[interjection]–oh, virtual, okay. Sorry, my mistake. Shirley Friesen, private citizen, virtual? Forsyth, sorry. Shirley Forsyth. A moment to get online here.

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 Can you unmute the microphone and turn your video on, Ms. Forsyth? We're not seeing anything yet–oh. Shirley Forsyth (Private Citizen): Oh, oh my goodness. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, can you hear and see us, and can we hear you? S. Forsyth: Yes, I can–I'm sorry, I've never done this before. It just–all of a sudden, it prompted up to join, so I joined. It's been very– Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we are now hearing you, so when you are ready, please go ahead with your pre - sentation. S. Forsyth: Okay, I don't have very much to say that hasn't already been said.

It's been a lot of really ex - cellent presentations. I live in the centre of the city, so I'm really concerned about the fact that boulevards in a lot of the areas are the only areas that children have to play on, or adults or a wee garden on the boulevards, because there is a lack of green space. And I don't think that's been taken into consid eration, that the only green space that is available in, sort of, the many mature areas of the city , exists on the boulevards, and you could spray chemicals that potentially could be toxic. I'm very concerned about this one. I'm a retired nurse.

Many years ago we had, I remember, a young person coming into the emer - gency, and I worked there. He got –mixed up the pesticides wrong, and he, sort of, died within a week. So, it left a really–he was farmer, a young farmer with a young family. So I know that these things can be very dangerous. And I worked for a while on–with kids –children with leukemia, and lawn pesticides was thought to be a risk factor, and that kind of has stayed with me for life.

So I really just can't, in good conscience, support a law that would facilitate greater use of pesticides and–on green space that mostly, you know, children have access to, such as the boulevards and –which is not covered in this legislation. I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your pre sentation, Ms. Forsyth. Does the com mittee have any questions for the presenter? Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Ms. Forsyth, for taking the time to–and stay on for the last couple of hours, to provide some infor mation to the table. Certainly ap - preciate that.

And thank you again for sharing some of those real personal points that you shared with the table, as well. As a father of two and a grandfather of five, I certainly respect the fact that we have to protect our children and protect our families and protect our pets as well. And that's why Bill 22 will be strengthened, again, to e nsure that playgrounds and schools and daycare centres and dog parks and picnic areas will be protected from cosmetic pesticide. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Minister. Ms. Forsyth, did you have any comments? S.

Forsyth: That doesn't address my concern about the boulevards in mature areas of the city, where chil- dren play on the boulevards because they may not have front lawns. Ms. Naylor: Thank you very much for your presenta- tion and for the personal stories that you shared. I really ap preciate you r focus on boulevards, coming from living in the inner city and being–you know, seeing that that is a place, you know, certainly, where people play, where children play, also where dogs play.

I keep hearing the minister reference dog parks, but in reality, the majority of dogs walk on the boulevards, and that's what families do. So I really ap- preciate your point on that and also reminding us that many, many Manitobans don't have the luxury of a big place to play, and the boulevards are essential. Mr. Cha irperson: Ms. Forsyth, do you have any questions? S. Forsyth: No, just thank you for listening to me. Mr.

Gerrard: I wonder if you would talk about other areas where children play that it would be im portant to protect, because there's a lot of areas where children play that are not now being protected. S. Forsyth: Sorry. Kids will migrate to any green space. And, like I said, a lot of these mature centres like empty lots or if they're –they can find one any place where they still can find a place to t hrow a ball or a Frisbee or whatever is in style right now. Kids just need–and play with their dogs, run with their dogs, get some exercise.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 It's just really important that these green spaces be kept as safe as possible. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Honourable minister? Mr. Wharton: No, I'm good. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions for Ms. Forsyth? Thank you very much Ms. Forsyth for your pre - sentation. Moving down the list, I will call Al Mackling, private citizen. No. I will call Steve Rauh, who has a virtual presenta- tion, I understand? Yes. Can you turn your video on and unmute, Mr. Rauh? We're seeing nothing yet. Can you see and hear us?

Steve Rauh (Private Citizen): I can see and hear you. Mr. C hairperson: Yes, and we can hear you. So, when you're comfortable, Mr. Rauh, would– S. Rauh: I–yes. Sorry about this, there's a power outage in the Riverview neighbourhood, and so I've been trying to get this– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Rauh, please go ahead w ith your presentation. S. Rauh: Okay. Well, I'll just make a quick, simple presentation. The bill that was passed that restricted the use of pesticides changed my life a little bit. This is Pulmicort–I'm sorry, this is Bricanyl.

This is an asthma m edicine that I use when I get a severe attack and I want quick relief. And this is Pulmicort. This is an asthma medicine that the doctors have told me if I have sustained asthma, which means if I use this more than two or three times a week, I'm to take t he Pulmicort daily, twice daily, to keep my lungs from getting scarred. The research study– Mr. Chairperson: Please, Mr. Rauh–please do not use props. We can't really put them in the record. If you can speak it in, please do so. [interjection] Mr. Rauh, go ahead. S.

Rauh: Yes, and the recent studies on Pulmicort show that it causes a problem with the brain, as do some–the use of steroids, which the –has now been identified as brain fog. And so they–the recent recom- mendation is to use as little of it as possible. So my choice is to use one or the other when I get asthma, but what would be best is that I not get asthma.

Prior to the passage of the pesticide reduction– cosmetic pesticide reduction bill of 2014–2008–2014, whenever it was–I would ride my bike around the city and people would have their lawn signs on, and it would show that there had been pesticides sprayed on their lawn, and I would get pretty serious asthma attacks. 'Substequent' to its passage and the tre mendous reduction in the use of the pesticide, I can ride my bike anywhere in the city and not get an asthma attack. And so, during the summer, when I love being outside, I can be around, go around, and not get any asthma.

And all summer long, I have not had to use medicine. If that –if you pass the pesticide –rescind the pesticide act, that's going to change my experience of Winnipeg. I'm going to be asthmatic all year round. And that will harm my health.

And I'm sure I'm not unique in this, and I'm not a child, I can manage my asthma, but I know children who have a very difficult time managing their asthma. * (20:20) So, I recom mend that you not rescind this bill, that it has led to a con siderable improvement in the quality of health, especially in this–the reason the lung association, I'm sure, supports the current ban on cosmetic pesticides.

And that is just one example of a not–I'm not talking about cancer or neurological disorders; those are much more difficult medical problems–but one example of the benefit that has accrued for me personally, and I'm sure for many, many other people who have asthma. That's my comment. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Rauh. Are there any questions from the com mittee for the presenter? Mr. Wharton: Thank you so much, Mr. Rauh, and thank you for sharing your story and some of the chal- lenges you're having, and certainly appre ciate that.

That's one of the reasons why we hold these commit- tees, and they're a great opportunity for the democratic process to move forward.

October 5, 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 I don't have any comment other than I hope your power comes on again soon and please stay well. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Rauh, did you have any comment? S. Rauh: Well, the pro tection of health is not just a question of majority versus minority.

Health protec - tion needs to be done for pretty much everybody, and it's the reason that we have laws that show us –that require us to drive a car in the right way, and it ought to be the reason we have laws that require us to minimize the dangers to the people who are some - times in a minority when it comes to their health. This is not about a democratic process. This is about a process –a com munity process that ensures health and well-being for everybody. Ms. Naylor: Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Rauh.

I appreciate hearing–I mean, I'm well aware of the long-term health risks with exposure to some of these pesticides and herbicides, but hearing your very im - mediate response–positive response–to the legislation change is helpful. Can you elaborate? Has there been a reduction in visits to the doctor, other medical costs to the Province, like any specific reduction just from you having reduced incidences of asthma? S. Rauh: Like I said, I'm now 73, so I've been around a while, and I've been able to manage my health. But, yes, I have had a few more visits to the doctor when my asthma has gotten worse.

My personal costs and the costs to the health system and insurance system has gone up because I've had to use more medicine previous to the pesticide reduction ac t, and so I'm going to guess that it is costing the health system, especially when we're talking about young people with asthma. And asthma seems to be on the increase in recent years, in recent decades, I should say, rather than the decrease. It's an issue that–a health issue that we know how to manage, not cure.

And there are a lot of other issues that we're having dif ficulty managing, like ADD and ADHD, which are some of the neurological conditions that have been associated with uses of pesticides. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation, and a very clear illustration of the impact of the law which was passed in 2014 to ban cosmetic pesticide use and a noticeable impact on your health. So thank you very much for your story and– because it illustrates quite clearly the difference be- fore and after the previous legislation was passed. S. Rauh: Yes, I would–it is a noticeable impact on my health.

If anyone in the room would like to hold their breath for two minutes and then tell me how they feel, you can get an idea of what it's like to have asthma, because sometimes for hours you have a very hard time breathing. And there is a famous psychiatrist named Sullivan [phonetic] who put loss of breath at the top of any form of anxiety that a person can have, because you can go without water for days but you can't go without breath for more than several minutes.

So, asthma is a parti cularly difficult health issue to manage, and if we're going to increase the incidence of asthma through the use of cosmetic pesticides in a city that has currently, through the last several years, been able to reduce that problem, I think we're moving in the wrong direction. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. The committee have any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Rauh, for your presentation. We're return to calling any further members that were called before and not available. Troy B. Bailey, private citizen. No? He's dropped off the bottom of the list, then. Okay.

During the meeting, we have received written submissions from Meg Sears, Prevent Cancer Now, and from Randall McQuaker, private citizen. Does the com mittee agree to have these docu - ments appear in the Hansard transcript of the meeting? [Agreed] Being circulated –this concludes the list of pre - senters we have before us. Is there anyone present in the room wishing to make a presentation? * * * Mr. Chairperson: Seeing none, we will now proceed to the clause -by-clause. Thank you to all of the presenters for your time and your patience this evening.

Does the minister responsible for Bill 22 have an opening statement? Mr. Wharton: Again, I'm very pleased to be here tonight, and Bill 22, The Environ ment Amendment Act, in committee. And, certainly, was a great evening

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 5, 2022 for the table, and I'm 'preciate' all the present ers that were here. Thank you again for all those that presented to Bill 22. Bill 22 will amend The Environment Act to allow Manitobans to use federally approved cosmetic pesti- cides on their lawns. At the same time, the bill enhances protections for children and pets. We heard from Manitobans. The current legis - lation is not working. Manitobans want to be able to use products that are already approved through Health Canada's robust scientific approval process.

The current available products in Manitoba are expensive and not effective. Repeat treatments are needed to have many–to have any impact whatsoever. Households and municipalities have little to sh

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-4-ag1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 4th hansardpdf ag1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dce334232f433de6e4501d2df90857f4028b2a31

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).