AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, 26 March, 1998

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)): I see a quorum, so I'll call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is an information session on pesticide regulations and medicated feeds, in this particular case. We had a good session a couple of days ago, on Tuesday, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and we hope it will get just as interesting here this morning.

I'd like to welcome Sally Rutherford, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Ron Cameron, chairman of the crop protection committee of the Canadian Horticultural Council; Danny Dempster, executive vice-president of the Horticultural Council; and Kenneth Edie, vice-president of Manitoba Pool Elevators, with whom we had breakfast this morning. It was a short breakfast, though, wasn't it?

Mr. Kenneth Edie (Vice-President, Manitoba Pool Elevators; Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): But it was a good breakfast.

A voice: And they paid.

The Chairman: Welcome, everyone. Maybe we'll start with you, Sally.

Ms. Sally Rutherford (Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Actually, I'm going to defer to my elected official here. I'll have Mr. Edie, who's a member of the CFA National Council and the CFA co-chair of our crop protection advisory committee, go ahead.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Sally. It's certainly a pleasure to be here to be able to speak with the committee on something that is very important to agriculture. I will keep my remarks mainly to grains and oilseeds, because, as Sally mentioned, Ron Cameron is the co-chair on the crop protection advisory committee.

Ron and I are also part of the economic management advisory committee that meets with the Crop Protection Institute of Canada and the Canadian Specialty Chemicals Association to get together with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency on a fairly regular basis. We do so to make sure the regulatory functions around the use of crop protection products are viable, that they protect the health and safety of Canadians, and that they are economically affordable and keep Canadian producers competitive in this world that we know and are continually told is global, and we have to cope with all the things that are going on in it.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is a part of Health Canada. Although I personally haven't done so, CFA has met with Mr. Rock, and we've been quite pleased with his attitude, openness and desire to make sure the system works. We're quite happy that he has taken those particular positions and that there is an overall framework for us to operate within in an environment that we want to be productive. However, there are a number of things that cause us concerns, and we need to raise them.

• 0915

We understand to a certain extent why the Pest Management Regulatory Agency takes the views it does. But to go back to cost recovery, at one time when the registration process was totally paid out of government funds and into the cost recovery program we said yes, that's fine, we can accept some of that, but we need to make sure it's done efficiently and we will pay only for areas that are in our realm. That having been said, there have been some problems. Although I might seem to be focusing on the problems here, I do say I think there is an environment such that with some really relatively minor shifts we can make a good deal of progress in achieving all our objectives.

One of our objectives, of course, was to make sure it's cost-effective. We're not sure just how that's playing out and how it's working. That's why we've pressed for a third-party review. We're pleased with the third-party review process and that it's under way, but we want to state also that it's not a solution to all the problems at PMRA. So we're waiting anxiously for the results of the report and we'll move forward from there. In the meantime, we want to have meaningful discussion and dialogue with the consultant, not in a way to undo their influence—I'm sure we couldn't, I'm sure they are professionals—but we need to make sure we do have the kind of contact with them such that they will be able to understand our concerns, which are consistent with those of Canadian society.

I mentioned economic concerns. At the economic management advisory committee meeting at the end of February we were told there is a $4 million shortfall in the PMRA operating budget and they are looking at options to deal with this shortfall: increased user fees, additional government funding, or program cuts. We are strongly opposed to increasing user fees, because the costs will eventually be passed on to farmers, making them less competitive with their U.S. counterparts, and indeed global counterparts.

If PMRA asks for additional government funding, it must not come at the expense of existing program budgets from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Money was transferred last year and we did not feel that was appropriate. Treasury Board should deal with the PMRA and continue to hold it accountable for its operating budget. The one-year funding as opposed to seven-year is a good start, but we must continue to monitor the situation. There is already a predicted shortfall for next year.

What are some examples of inefficiencies? We've heard of examples such as the following from various registrants about time delays they experience: ten months to make a name change on a label; eight months to receive approval to change the container size of a product. We have difficulty in understanding what the situation is and how that relates to change in the health and safety of Canadians.

On harmonization under the NAFTA process, one of the things we were promised, if that's the right context, is that NAFTA would help us move towards plant protection products harmonization, especially with the U.S. Some headway has been made, and I could cite a couple of examples of meetings I've been at where it has been reported through NAFTA and the OECD. However, a lot more needs to be done. Mr. Cameron will outline the horticulture. We have some concerns about what is happening in the Food Quality Protection Act, which recently came into place in the United States.

Efficacy is one area where immediate action can be taken in harmonization requirements. In the U.S. registrants do not have to provide efficacy data when they register their products, but they must make the information available if requested by the Environmental Protection Agency. In Canada, not only do companies have to provide efficacy data, but it's often over and above what they require for their own tests, adding about 18 months to the registration process and adding a noticeable expense. The PMRA then charges an additional $906 to review the data submitted.

The CFA is comfortable with the tests being provided by the registrants, since we feel efficacy is effectively regulated by the marketplace. No company is going to put itself at risk by putting out a product that doesn't work. It will soon come home to their roost.

• 0920

We need to emphasize that we are not saying that efficacy tests should not be performed. This is not a health and safety issue. We're saying that efficacy data should only be submitted to the PMRA upon request. The extra time and money needed to submit the efficacy test is a prohibitive barrier to the products being registered.

We know that the Minister of Health's office is committed to working with industry in resolving problems such as those described here today. We appreciate having a seat at the table on committees such as the economic management advisory committee, but the Pest Management Regulatory Agency must work at streamlining the registration process and harmonizing standards. It must be held accountable for its budget and must not keep going back to industry and the government for additional funding.

Those are the statements I make, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions or comments, I'd be happy to respond to them, or perhaps after Mr. Cameron does his, because some of the questions and things are interlocking. Then you could get both sides answered at once.

The Chairman: We'll hear from Mr. Cameron first and then we'll go to questions.

Mr. Dempster, do you have a presentation to make?

Mr. Danny Dempster (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Horticultural Council): I would just say that I appreciate being here, after 21 years of working on this issue.

I would like to introduce Ron. Ron has been the horticulture industry lead spokesman on the pesticide file for over 20 years. Ron is an actual producer. I'm an industry bureaucrat.

We appreciate the opportunity to be here.

The Chairman: The producer speaks.

Mr. Ron Cameron (Chairman, Crop Protection Advisory Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for the opportunity to discuss some of these issues with you.

I can't say enough how much I agree fully with the position Ken has put before you. We have always collaborated on this issue, from slightly different aspects but certainly in total agreement, as to the route that is being taken to try to bring some efficiency into the regulatory system for pesticides.

From a horticultural crop production area, though, let me say first of all that I am a producer. I'm involved in the production of vegetables for processing. I'm also involved in a cooperative that processes vegetables for processing that deals, within North America, with a lot of product going into the United States, importing from the United States a lot of product that is blended and mixed with commodities we grow in southwestern Ontario.

That business is so interlocked now in our trading agreements that we see a real hazard to that trade and to the benefit to Canadians in that trade. We need some regulatory reconciliation in order to protect that trade and the competitiveness of Canadian producers as we embark in that.

For instance, in our small company we deal with about 50 million pounds of frozen vegetables that we produce ourselves in southwestern Ontario. We blend with that another 25 million pounds of other frozen products that are imported, mainly from the United States but also from some other companies. In turn, we then market a large portion of that back into the United States.

So if we look at how our business operates in a regulatory system, particularly as it relates to what we can use as pesticides and what our competitors can use as pesticides in order to protect those crops, then I think we need to realize that there is a much broader issue here in terms of reconciliation of the regulatory system for pesticides.

Basically, we're not here to argue that the directions presently being taken are wrong. We say the directions that are happening are right, and our regulatory system is headed in the right direction. But I'd like to remind the committee that we're ten years into trading agreements CUSTA and NAFTA, and these trading agreements are having a lot of effect on how we're dealing with products off our farms. If we don't have a regulatory system that recognizes simultaneous and equal access to the materials our competitors have, then we're going to be the long-term losers in that argument.

• 0925

Let me say that in terms of cost recovery, efficiency, and the efficacy issue, we agree with the position Mr. Edie has just put before you.

I would like to look a little further into the actual fruit and vegetable trade in Canada. The farm-gate value of this market is about $2.6 billion. Of that, slightly less than $1 billion is produced by Canadian farmers; the rest is imported. Those imports come into Canada under a regulatory system that allows residue limits on this food that can be up to 0.1 parts per million for products that are not even registered in Canada. On the other way, we look at products going into the United States for instance that have to meet a zero tolerance; and zero means zero over there, not 0.1. There is no tolerance. And if a product is not registered in the United States then we have to meet a 0.000 tolerance. We see that as being somewhat unfair as to the balance of those trading issues.

If we look at the farm-gate value of the fruit and vegetable industry in Canada—and I am talking about potatoes, carrots, fruits and vegetables of all types that are basically being produced—we produce a total farm-gate value of just slightly less than what the corn crop is worth to Canada on farm-gate value. The corn crop looks at one commodity in order to deal with their needs as far as crop protection is concerned. We look at 150 different commodities within the horticultural area in order to get our needs for crop protection.

We are looking at minor crops and minor uses and we need some support and systems developed by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency that will simplify our access to those materials. That simplification should work to their advantage as well as ours, because there are international bodies that make judgments and evaluate risk around the world, which we think could be used to simplify their work and reduce their work and meet some of the needs Mr. Edie has described in their cost efficiencies in terms of what we need to get access and availability to products that our competitors already have.

On the horizon is a far greater issue in the United States, and that is the Food Quality Protection Act in the United States, where by legislation United States regulators, the Environmental Protection Agency, have to evaluate all food uses of all pesticides over a 10-year period. They have been given the heaviest list of those highest on their priority list as being possible sources of risk to be completed in the first three years of that act. We are already a year and a half into that act in the United States. So the deadline we are looking at and the American producers are looking at is a complete re-evaluation of all of their food residue limits to be completed by August 1999. This is a legislated deadline that their regulators are obliged to meet.

Within that first 3,000 list of food uses are probably the most critical uses in the fruit and vegetable industry and to a lot of other crop industries in Canada. At the top of that list are the organo-phosphate and carbamate insecticides. These insecticides constitute 70% of the total use of insecticides in North America. At the present time there is an indication that the EPA does not even know how they are going to process that total risk assessment in order to arrive at those residue limits.

• 0930

Our concern is that as those priorities for the continued use of a lot of materials is evaluated in the United States, and as those product uses are limited in the United States, we will be at risk of not being able to use those materials in Canada. If they drop off the list of uses in the United States, we're obliged then to meet that 0.000 limitation on any product that we ship into the United States. That will be impossible to meet if we use any of those products at all. We see a real risk here in being able to remain competitive in the businesses that we have.

I guess that's the forewarning of the bad news. I'd also like to talk about a good-news story in the industry.

The National Cancer Institute in the United States and the Canadian Cancer Society authorized some work to be done by a committee to evaluate the risk of pesticides in the Canadian diet. They were concerned as to whether they should refocus the large issue on regulating pesticides, to control the use of them if they were a major risk to Canadian diets. The findings of that committee were released last December. Unfortunately, they didn't get the total publicity we think they should have received.

Dr. Ritter, who chaired that committee and published the paper on behalf of the National Cancer Institute, has shown that fruits and vegetables are a good-news story to the Canadian diet. They are a cancer preventer. They have data shown in this paper that this is a positive story for Canadian diet. The contribution that pesticides make to the supply, availability, and price of those dietary positive attributes going into the Canadian diet are very positive. We think that story should be looked into, perhaps by this committee. We need to get that story out to the Canadian public.

So we've talked about some bad news, we've talked about some good news. Hopefully, we can leave on a good note. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. What vegetables and fruits were tested by the Cancer Society?

Mr. Ron Cameron: They tested both domestic product and imported product. The finding basically is that in almost 99% of those tests, the imported and domestic product met a zero residue or were well within the limits prescribed by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Health Canada.

The Chairman: What were the products, strawberries, broccoli, potatoes?

Mr. Ron Cameron: You'd have to look into the paper further. I don't have those details.

The Chairman: Your example with the list of products tested, was it a long list?

Mr. Ron Cameron: A very comprehensive list, because it's the data taken by the food inspection agency.

The Chairman: It would be interesting to see that.

Mr. Ron Cameron: We have copies of the paper and we'd love to leave them with you.

The Chairman: How close are you to a common regulatory system with the United States? Can you venture a guess?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I think Dan said we've been working on this issue for 20 years. We're getting closer.

The Chairman: Within the NAFTA, you've broken seven years since NAFTA, haven't you?

Mr. Ron Cameron: No. As of January 1 of this year there are no longer any of the residual tariffs on fruits and vegetables coming in. We're into our tenth year of cuts to NAFTA and our tariff protection is gone.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd first like to say this is one of those rare issues where I think the agricultural community and the agriculture industry is united in terms of their stand on the issue, unless you know of some farm group or some industry that really doesn't take basically the same stand you've just presented. I think that's encouraging. It doesn't happen very often in the agriculture industry. It seems like there's still quite a bit to be done between government and the agriculture industry, though, to work out some bugs.

• 0935

I have some questions, but I want to start by responding to a comment or asking a question, Mr. Edie. You asked why efficacy should be an issue in this pesticide regulation process. It certainly isn't a health concern. Why do you think that ever became a factor in terms of Health Canada's mandate?

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Mr. Chairman, let me say to Mr. Benoit that I think there's a bit of history to this. A number of years ago, a lot of registration regulation was done to protect the consumer, and in this case, the consumer of plant protection products. Does it work? Is it worth while? How many snake oil salesmen are out there?

I think that was probably the basic reason for starting it, but we've certainly gone a long way past that with the fact that a company which does not put out a product that works will be dealt with in the marketplace. And I guess that sort of transferred over to some organizations that felt it was beneficial to them. As an example, we'll use the Consumers' Association of Canada, which feels that efficacy should still be part of the registration process. Their rationale is that if it isn't there farmers will use too much or more because they don't know what will work and so on and so forth.

So I think we need to address their concern in a way that they can understand and feel comfortable with, because we've always found the Consumers' Association of Canada very rational. It's a matter of communication and getting them to understand this isn't a health and safety issue but an economic issue, in the sense that this will help them put products on the table in a more cost-effective way, so that those on the lower income scale in particular will be able to afford the fruits and vegetables and grains and oilseed products that we have in Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it still is hard to see why efficacy could hold up the process in the same way that a health issue could. I think everyone understands that you have to deal with health issues and that a product certainly shouldn't be allowed before the health issue is taken care of. But particularly if some of the products that are in great demand are available in the United States.... The products are imported from the United States into Canada and sold. That's allowed. Yet farmers in Canada don't have access to those products, and we've seen a list of them.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Particularly in the horticultural area—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: —although we've found the reverse of that now in the oilseed situation, where Canadian pedigree seed for planting, canola seed, would be treated and shipped into the United States and the product is being used in Canada. It's not registered in the United States, so they're going to shut it out and so on and so forth. That's what we want to resolve. We want to resolve those issues in a way that's beneficial to both Canada and the United States.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. And certainly I think it's important for the Americans to know that it's a two-way thing too.

I'd just like to get a comment from Mr. Cameron on that issue. In the past I've heard from farm groups on that issue, from groups like AGCare and the Ontario Corn Producers and many others, actually, and certainly from the CFA, about the fact that harmonization, particularly between the American system and the Canadian system, but between other trading partners as well, isn't there. So we have this strange occurrence where our Canadian farmers can't use a product which they desperately need in the production of their product when it's available in the United States and the American product can be sold into Canada. How big an issue is that for people in your industry or for you?

Mr. Ron Cameron: There are several cases that have come to the fore already.

• 0940

In the initiation of the NAFTA technical working group discussions, it was about four years late in getting going because it was not until we were four years into NAFTA in fact before the talks even got under way to reconcile these issues between the United States and Canada, and now Mexico.

The issue at the origin was trade irritants. For instance, carrot producers in Nova Scotia and the maritimes market a lot of carrots into the United States. One of the materials that they need is a Canadian-registered product called Prometryn. It was one of the first trade-irritant issues that we put on the table with the NAFTA technical working group. Promatrene is not registered in the United States. It's not needed to be used in the United States because they have other alternatives. But it is used in the Maritimes in carrot production and they market into the northeast. They have to meet a 0.0 tolerance. So carrot producers in the Maritimes needing this product can't use that product because they can't take the risk of destroying the marketability they have, which is valuable to them.

We asked the NAFTA technical working group on trade irritants to reconcile this issue on Prometryn with us. That was about four years ago, and it has still not been reconciled.

That's the type of issue we're talking about. The initiative is good, the process was and is being developed, but the product and the issues are not being resolved.

I guess the issue in the NAFTA technical working group is that they used to meet every six months. They would hold stakeholder opportunities to discuss these issues with them every six months since they were initiated. We found that there was five months of inactivity, and then a flurry of activity just before the six-month stakeholder presentation in order to reconcile some of these issues.

It just seems to go from peaks to valleys, and we don't seem to be getting the continuous effort that's needed. And now it's even being exaggerated because they're only going to present these opportunities on the basis of once a year rather than every six months. We just see this as not being credible in providing what we need.

Mr. Danny Dempster: Perhaps I might add something complementary to what Ron said on this whole concept of the work toward harmonization. That's the language that's in the Canada-United States trade agreement. After 20 years, I have been quoted as saying that the work is proceeding with the speed of a receding glacier. This is not to be negative; I think they are moving in the right direction.

I was before a crowd in Montreal, and I had trouble getting something out of the paper. The president told me to hurry up in front of 800 people. I said to the president that I was trying. He said to try harder. Anyway, that's how we feel.

Here is the interesting issue. I think the freight train is coming with this FQPA, and if we thought there was a need to get greater cooperation between the two systems.... If that freight train hits, and we proceed with the speed with which we've been proceeding over the last 20 years from our perspective, then I think the two countries are going to have a colossal problem in terms of producers having the technology to produce. We will have a colossal trade problem.

We tend to get caught up on both sides of the border of Canada and the United States that ours is safer than theirs. There are two million Canadians in Florida probably—-depending on the dollar, I guess maybe there are 1,900,000—eating products right now. So I don't understand this issue in terms of health.

Ron also referred to the fact that Dr. Ritter's study, which we would like to have seen 10 years ago, has come out to say that this is not the issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Dempster, who is slowing this down to the speed of a receding glacier? Is it the Americans?

Mr. Danny Dempster: Well, I think part of it has been the process. The whole system up here was being reviewed as part of a public process several years ago. A pesticide registration system is not an easy issue to tackle for any government.

There was a public review, I don't know, five, six, or seven years ago. Now we have a new agency, and they are starting to get their feet on the ground. They have a workload. They have to get used to working in a changed environment as to how they report back to a minister and working in an agency type of atmosphere.

• 0945

So they have their own problems, just as everybody does in dealing on a day-to-day basis. But we've been waiting for some of this cooperation for many years. I just don't feel that they're really getting the message of how significant this problem will be. That's one reason why we appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Mr. Leon Benoit: To follow up, one of you gentlemen commented before that the Food Quality Protection Act in the U.S. could end the use of some pesticides that are used now. The concern is that then Canadians really wouldn't be able to use them if they want to export any of the product. I wouldn't think the Americans are going to end the use of these products until there's a replacement product. Is the real concern that this replacement product might be available in the United States long before it's available in Canada, because of the length of the process?

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I think that is one of the real concerns, and as Danny said, it's a really complicated issue to try to deal with.

I don't think we can say often enough that our issue is not with any testing or any activity that is going to actually impact on health and safety or the environment; it's essentially a management issue. As Danny also pointed out, the problems with having gone through.... I think the reviews started, what, 10 years ago, Ron?

Mr. Ron Cameron: In 1989.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: Danny just said to me he thinks pesticides are going to kill him, but it will be stress that will do it; it's not anything else.

I think one of the real concerns is.... It became very obvious through the whole process of going through cost recovery last year, and the PMRA is not the only part of government that has the kinds of problems that it has. I think there has been a major shift in the way government sees the world, but it has happened in some respects up here and we're trying to deal with the fact that the culture shift isn't happening as quickly as it needs to happen within the bureaucracy. Whenever there's any kind of a system, whether it's in a family or whether it's in an institution—and it's harder when it's in an institution—and especially when you're talking about people's jobs and their livelihoods, I think there's a lot of reluctance to make changes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a series of questions along that line, which I will ask later.

The Chairman: Ms. Alarie, go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): This is a serious problem involving certain ambiguities that I don't understand and which I would like explained. Does the agency responsible for approving products have targets, or does it approve all the products it receives from the industry?

Let me explain my question. There has been talk about how the agency has evolved, and it was said that there was a time when we wanted to fight the charlatans. Health is still a priority, but, ultimately, we're sorting through the products. If I understand you correctly, we're facing very staff competition in the international market. So it seems to me that the priority is still health, but, at the same time, we have to target certain things so that we can measure up to this international competition.

Depending on the way the agency proceeds, are you required to analyze all the products that are marketed, or can you target the products that would make us competitive or put us on an equal footing in trade with the US?

[English]

Ms. Sally Rutherford: The answer is no. I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea that every product should have some level of scrutiny, that there be some Canadian stamp of approval on any product that's used in Canada. I think what we're looking for in terms of harmonization and work-sharing is that where there are products that are available so we don't redo the work that has already been done elsewhere. It does come down to a difference between, exactly as you've described, trying to deal with the health aspect and trying then to deal with economic aspects. I think, as I started to respond to Mr. Benoit's question, that's where we're missing the piece in the PMRA right now: the culture has not changed adequately to be able to recognize the needs that are there.

• 0950

We know the new products that are available are safer, both for the environment and for human health, but we have a system right now that has become rigid enough that it's very difficult for the system—not individuals, but the system—to be able to move things along at a speed where we can access new technology.

That becomes the really difficult problem. As the Americans are going to take products off the list, the Americans will have new products; Canadians will not. It is a complicated issue. This is a much smaller country, and when you're talking about carrots or asparagus or something like that, and even in the grains industry—and that's becoming increasingly important—we talk about minor uses now. We're talking about minor uses on major crops, in some cases, where there are contracts for certain crops for certain uses, and the specifications are such that you need to have product available.

That was an issue with canola a couple of years ago. The Japanese were insisting that a certain fungicide be used on the crop, but it was not available for use in Canada, so we couldn't meet the specifications for that contract. Those are the kinds of things we have to be able to deal with, and the companies have to feel they can actually not lose money by registering a product in Canada. That's the situation we're in at the moment and that's where we have this really difficult economic issue. How do you get the products registered?

The Chairman: Mr. Dempster, did you want to add something there?

Mr. Danny Dempster: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That was a very excellent question.

We've taken our first kick at the cat. PMRA has their own work plan and demands currently before them. We've taken a first kick at the cat at what the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act would be. That's not even plugged into the system yet. If this happens—again, I'm an economist by training, and we like the “if” word—if this happens, this is the type of thing that the PMRA, on behalf of all Canadians, is going to have to try to cope with.

I brought one copy for the committee. It's our first kick at the cat.

[Translation]

We also have a copy in French.

[English]

so we will circulate that to the committee. This is a who's who list of products that are used by the Canadian fruit and vegetable sector. If what happens in the States happens, then this is the impact on the Canadian industry from the fruit and vegetable sector, and that's the only thing we can speak for at this point in time from our perspective.

You can immediately see that we interpreted the worst-case scenario. We put in the zero parts per million. You can go through those crops and go back to any part of Canada and find producers who are exporting a lot of those products into the United States. You see the game they're up against. And we haven't even talked about the fact that if the product is withdrawn from use in the United States, the manufacturer, for a variety of reasons, may decide they wish to withdraw the product from registration in Canada, which is truly their right. This means we have another problem: even if we don't export to the United States, we do not have the technology to produce.

So I would be pleased to share that with the committee. It's just a first kick at the cat. We'd like to kick the cat before it kicks us.

The Chairman: Thanks.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Ultimately, you've nevertheless put your finger on the problem, which is a cultural problem. Are you in a position to propose some fairly quick changes to the system?

[English]

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I don't know. Ron, do you want to try that one? You've been around this.

Mr. Ron Cameron: Two or three points need to be recognized. We have a new trading arrangement worldwide, and particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement. Of our business, 80% is with the United States; of their business in this area, 80% is with us. So they're the critical partners. We have to look at what they are doing and respond to it without losing our sovereignty. Perhaps you can argue that some of that sovereignty has already been given away by some of the trading agreements we have, but on the other hand they have been of value to us, and of proven value to us, over the long run.

We're also looking at a system of legislation in Canada that was last revised, I think, in 1967. It well preceded any of the systems that we're now speaking about as far as our trading agreements are concerned. We're revising the way in which we do business in this area with the new Pest Management Regulatory Agency. We're taking steps in the right direction, but we are constantly reminded that we're dealing with old legislation that has not been updated to recognize some of the concerns that we presently have. The system has to go down many avenues in order to make improvements, and we'd like to see those improvements made in all those directions.

• 0955

I reinforce again that we, as Canadian producers, do not want to give away more of our sovereignty on this issue. We still will defend the right of the Canadian regulatory system to make the decision. We just want to aid or producers as much as possible when it comes to accessing the information they need, without a total review and redundancy of review that is already done in many other jurisdictions. I think the industry, the formulators and the manufacturers are going a long way to provide this now, and the regulator is starting to recognize these things. Again, we say that we have to put the pedal to the metal and let's get it done. That's what we need.

The Chairman: The Americans certainly don't seem to be losing too much sovereignty. Irregardless of what you're doing together, they have the Food Quality Protection Act doing the residue studies. We could be sideswiped and would have no protection against being sideswiped, from what I can gather.

Mr. Ron Cameron: I think the U.S. producers will find away around it. Their system is flexible. A certain producer group will go to Senator So-and-so, and Senator So-and-so will provide an argument on their behalf that will provide them with some immediate relief until the system can be worked out. Our system is perhaps not as flexible in Canada in order to meet that, nor do we have the flexibility of the wide-ranging registrations that they have. For instance, in some of the crops that we're growing, we may only have one or two alternatives to that use, whereas a comparable American producer who is in the same area a few miles away across the border may have as many as six or seven alternatives. He can afford to give away one or two of his.

The Chairman: Mr. Dempster.

Mr. Danny Dempster: Further to your question, Mr. Chairman, this list that we're prepared to share with the committee has already been shared with our counterparts in the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry. We want to sit down with them very quickly because we want to understand what the situation is in the United States. We don't want to be trying to blow smoke. We'd like to blow facts at people, not illusions of a problem. We want to get to the facts, so we're trying as an industry to meet with them in the next little while.

Like us, they have learned the hard way by getting caught in this frustrating problem of residue and using it as an argument in saying ours is safer than yours. The reality is that they're both safe. There are differences in the system that cause some of these problems, but the reality for us is that after fighting those battles as an industry organization, we have spent—and we're voluntary not for profit, so anything we get is what people feel they wish to contribute to our organization—spent a lot of energy and dollars that are hard to come by, defending the safety of the fruits and vegetable just basically on this issue.

When Dr. Ritter made his report, we were pretty excited, but we're also a lot lighter in the pocket in terms of defending the integrity of the industry. What we'd like to do is promote better health by getting people to eat more of the products, and it's frustrating.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome everyone to the committee, especially my honourable friend from my riding. He's certainly a highly respected farmer in the county of Kent.

Your statement this morning was that tolerance is 0.1 parts for shipping to Canada and 0.0 parts for Canada shipping to United States. Have those always been the numbers?

Mr. Ron Cameron: Yes, those have been the numbers for a long while, but the definition of “zero” is the question. Canada has always taken a definition that allows a little bit of leeway. The Americans have always defined zero as the level of detection. The level of detection has gone from parts per million to parts per billion to what they can actually find now, which is parts per quadrillion. I always say that if I came into this room and put a pen speck on the wall and asked you to find it, that would be what we're looking for in a lot of these residues. The system is now such that they can find that speck on the wall.

• 1000

The other aspect of the 0.1 versus the 0.00 is that as the system adjusts to the Food Quality Protection Act in the United States and certain crop protection uses are lost, we see the Americans being adequately protected, and their consumers being adequately protected, against products coming into their marketplace from any other offshore area by their 0.0, whereas our competitiveness is going to be hazarded by our relative openness to those materials that may no longer be registered here but perhaps Mexico, or some other country that ships into our area, will be able to ship into our market because they can come in under the 0.1 but couldn't risk going into 0.0.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think we've had experience with that in the past few years in a few products coming from another country.

Mr. Ron Cameron: That's right.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is there a commodity that is more susceptible than others to difficulties with this?

Mr. Ron Cameron: One of the things I said is that the current review in the United States is over the carbamate and organophosphate insecticides, which is 70% of the total protection we have against insect predation in Canada. If we lose any significant portion of those uses in Canada, we're going to have a lot of product at risk, a lot of commodities at risk.

Again, as we look at that issue of how we react on these minor uses.... For instance, one of the crops we grow is lima beans. I think the total acreage in Canada is something like 450 acres. The American definition of a minor use is 300,000 acres.

We'd like to be part of that 300,000 acres when we acquire a minor use in Canada. We don't think our use of a product on 450 acres of lima beans is going to be very significant in the use that may be already occurring in North America, either to the health of people or to the environment. We think those things should be recognized.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right.

In your statement this morning, Mr. Cameron, you had the good-news story about pesticides and cancer research. Have you had any reaction from the organic farmers on that?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I don't think there's much to react to from organic farmers. Basically, the work done by that committee, headed by Dr. Ritter, literally showed that there's not much of a detectable way to determine the difference between an organically raised fruit or vegetable versus what we raise with conventional methods.

I've always argued that organic farming is only a matter of degree. I consider myself to be an organic farmer. I don't use any more material than I absolutely have to for economic...and also for the reason that if anyone's at risk in using pesticides, it's me. In fact, my sons who are involved in our farming operation say, “Dad, you're over the hill anyway; you go out and use them. We're not going to put ourselves at risk.”

I guess that's the type of attitude we have in farming. So don't argue with us that we're not looking at this from a genuinely positive application of risk.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

Has this new agency that's been set up caused higher standards or more difficulties than the past regulatory system, or is it just a continuation?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I think we have to say that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in its present way is coming through with, particularly in the minor use area, what we call “minor use label expansions”. They're doing some really good work. They're providing us with some materials that formerly we had much longer waits for.

So there is a recognition of those needs, and I think they're working in that direction.

• 1005

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you think probably the main major concern here is the time factor regarding harmonization, sharing of information between the U.S. and Canada, because we're the two greatest exporting buddies on this? Do you think that if we avoided that duplication it would be the most beneficial aspect of this agency and things would get progressively a little more efficient?

Mr. Ron Cameron: By far the greatest. The greatest benefits can come with cooperation between the PMRA and the U.S. EPA. They're working toward it, but they need more impetus.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How can we as a committee help this process? What suggestion can you give to us? What button can we push to enhance that?

Mr. Ron Cameron: There are people here in this room who can describe the actions an awful lot better than I can, as to the progress the industry and the regulators are making toward using common data packages. The data packages that would be presented in Canada would be exactly the same as the package they would put into any other jurisdiction.

At the present time, we don't have that capability. Mr. Edie has talked about one of the major concerns, and that's in the area of efficacy. We deal with efficacy differently than the United States does.

The Chairman: Mr. Edie, would you like to respond? Then we'll go to Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Directly to your question, I attended the NAFTA technical working group meeting here in Ottawa last June and saw the workings of it. There are some things that can be done. But I think what we've noticed by watching what's happening is that they seem to be able to work better on new products, new registrants, rather than re-evaluating the old.

Here's an example: When Canada got registration for the use of Round-up for desiccation of oats, the U.S. didn't have it, but the technical group worked at it through the winter so that by the spring the U.S. had it and it ceased to be an issue.

After attending the meeting of the technical working group, my recommendation to Dr. Franklin and his producers is that we need a direct input to the policy activities of the technical working group, not at the end of the day.

The government is a government and the government is going to govern—that's a given. However, there may be things happening they aren't aware of as to how it reacts on our operations. After attending the economic advisory committee meeting here in Ottawa at the end of February, I recommended to Mr. Wilkinson, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, that we needed to have an effective committee dealing with the policy advisement through the PMRA into the technical working group.

They are doing things, as I've said. They've done some regionalization, taking Ontario and Michigan and making it a region, and southern Manitoba and North Dakota, having the residual things there and accepting those.

On new work, they seem to be doing better than on the re-evaluation of some of the old. That's just an observation. We can't prove it. It's anecdotal.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): The first thing I would like to do is follow up something the chairman was asking, about which vegetables and which fruits were part of the test. Can I ask the chairman what it is he actually grows that we know was put into the test?

The Chairman: Potatoes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Potatoes. You could have been much more direct with that question, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, this is an area that is intriguing. I've done some research on it, and certainly there's a lot more to be done. I would like to first of all thank the panel for being as diplomatic as they have been, in fact perhaps a little overly diplomatic.

A voice: We're ordinary people.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, you're excellent, you really are.

We talk about some of the problems we have faced with the PMRA. Needless to say, the problem we have with lag time with the PMRA was mentioned. How do I say this diplomatically, if I can? I'll cut to the chase, okay?

The PMRA obviously has some difficulties associated with it. We have had timing problems with registration. I think Sally mentioned the fact that change is very difficult to implement. I'll say two things: one is turf protection, and the other one, obviously, is protection of one's own job. I think that was mentioned too. Is there anything we can do to facilitate, to accelerate the rate of approvals, perhaps a change in attitude of the PMRA?

I should also tell you that I've had the opportunity to listen to a presentation from the chief executive officer of the PMRA. The talk was great. I loved the message that was given, but I didn't see the walk in that particular talk. Is there anything that can be done? Then I'm going to ask about the American system again, because I'm rather intrigued about it. Is there anything we can do as a committee, as that part of the committee on government, to try to encourage the PMRA to become much more active and much more efficient?

• 1010

Ms. Sally Rutherford: There are a couple of things to say to that.

Ken mentioned, and I think Ron referred to the fact, that there is a third-party review going on at the present time. We're really hoping that the review—which is essentially a benchmarking study on management, it's not on the scientific stuff—will give us some real information that everybody can agree upon in terms of how the PMRA operates. I'm personally really tired of arguing over numbers. It doesn't get you anywhere, because you can make them say anything you want. So having a third-party review with some good information that everybody can buy into is really important.

In terms of the immediate timeframe, we are waiting for the results of the third-party review to see what's there and hoping that it will identify some areas that everybody will then have to agree have to be addressed. So I think that's one thing, and we're not asking you today to go out and doing anything very specific.

I think the other thing that as a committee you can do.... And I think this applies to Ag Canada as well, and the Department of Health, Industry Canada, and whatever other departments have to do with any other issues you have to deal with. It's not just a pesticides issue. It is I think a whole issue of culture change in terms of the way government has to operate, of simply trying to at every opportunity ask the right questions about what kinds of changes are being made within the bureaucracy.

Perhaps now is a good time with the changes that are going on within the bureaucracy in terms of la relève and the other programs that are in place to look at renewal, to look at how the culture can change to actually make the system work. To put a really positive light on it, I think we've entered an era to some extent of greater democracy perhaps in the way things operate. It's not so much a top-down system where somebody up here makes a decision and everybody else has to live with it. We're coming to a system where things perhaps are coming closer together.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that just wishful thinking on your part, or do you actually see that happening within the PMRA?

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I think that at some level there's a willingness to try to do some of this stuff. I know that John McCully is here; he sits on some technical committees and I think that some of this stuff is there. We keep running into these blockages.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Roadblocks. We've run into them.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: And it's going to keep pushing.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would just like to touch on that with the American system. Obviously the American system has been seen to be more proactive, whereas we have been reactive. Is there anything we can learn from the American system to try to implement into the PMRA right now?

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Ron's had the most.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Ron, you had some great comments, by the way, and I really appreciate them. You're talking political in that aspect of it when you talk about access to politicians and you move it. I would like to stay away from that. But is there anything we can learn from the system itself that would make ours more efficient?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I don't think the U.S. agency, the office of pesticides, is any different from the PMRA. They deal with the same types of people and they deal with the same issues basically at the same time. Their legislation is a little different in arriving at their risk assessments. They take a much more credible look at the benefits that can accrue from the use of the material. So there are some differences there.

I think the Americans have as much to gain out of a cooperative, well-recognized international system as we do, and they have the same difficulties as you and Sally have just talked about in getting there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: My last question has to do with your comment about sovereignty, about maintaining our own sovereignty with our own system of PMRA. In your opinion, is there an opportunity at some point in time where in fact both the American and Canadian systems would be totally integrated and harmonized, where if in fact there is registration in one area it would be a common registration in the other area?

• 1015

Mr. Ron Cameron: Yes. And I think you mentioned that the chief executive officer of the PMRA as recently as late last fall, before American industry, stated that within five years we will basically have a common system.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I also said walk the walk and talk the talk. I'm not so sure we're there yet.

Mr. Ron Cameron: I agree with you fully.

The Chairman: Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): I apologize for being late. Our agriculture critic, Dick Proctor, couldn't be here this morning, so I wanted to drop in for a few minutes. It's good to see you, and good to see Ms. Rutherford in particular. A number of years ago I used to be the food and agriculture spokesperson for the NDP caucus, and she was involved in those days as well.

It's good to see you back at the table again.

The Chairman: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That might be a point of privilege for you. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, I apologize for missing your opening comments, but I wonder whether it might not be worth while to have a special reference to a parliamentary committee to try to start the process of our regulations and see whether or not we could have more consistency with the United States or other people around the world. Is there a political role to be played by Parliament in addition to what you're doing here this morning and a general look at this, or should we leave this to the officials? Sometimes a small subcommittee of a parliamentary committee can be very effective. It could be a subcommittee of seven or eight members with a mandate of three months to try to pull something together, along with you folks and so on. I just wonder if that's useful.

Mr. Ron Cameron: I certainly think it would be useful to look into the rate of activity and the progress that is being made. Again, there have been a series of committees since the review process that happened back in 1989 and 1990, and successive governments have responded to the consensus that occurred back then among all stakeholders. Successive governments have had different approaches to solving the problem, but I'm not sure we have really got to the basic problem, and that is what I would like to see this committee respond to: the positive aspects pesticides are making to the dietary availability of good, sound nutrition for Canadians and to making those products available at prices all Canadians can afford. I think that's the positive message we have to look for in this, and I think it should be promoted by a committee like this.

There may be a couple of different aspects of that which have not been explored far enough. We seem to be reacting, as committees, as producers, as government, as regulators, to very inflammatory sound bites that come from negative groups which would like to see a complete revocation of all pesticides. Yet if we look at what is causing concern in the Canadian diet, it's basically microbiological contamination, which we're just now coming to grips with, starting to deal with. Pesticides are not the problem. Are we spending far too much in trying to regulate an issue that is not really a problem? I think we have to start looking at these positive things rather than continue to be reactionary to those people who have a very negative approach to this issue.

Mr. Danny Dempster: I think this committee could play a very useful role. Sally mentioned the third-party review. We're waiting for that. We expect that will be a totally unbiased third-party review, which it should be, and maybe we'll have some more information from that perspective.

We're also in the process, as I mentioned earlier, of trying to sort out what this means between Canada and the United States for our sector; but it goes more broadly than just to fruits and vegetables. We know we can provide more facts to people on what this impact is really going to be. We can tell you it looks like a freight train, but until we understand it more clearly, it's really unfair to go much further with it. But I can see this committee playing a useful role.

• 1020

I will circulate it and I will make other copies available. If it makes the chairman feel better, there are eight products on here that relate to potatoes, and I know he likes potatoes. I do too.

I would urge you to take a look at it, because wherever you come from, you can find a product in here that's from there. That's what the impact could be. Potatoes is big-time on this as well.

An hon. member: You got his attention.

Mr. Danny Dempster: That's why I picked potatoes.

The Chairman: Danny knows what he's doing.

One more short question, Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, I have one more, Mr. Potato—I mean, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Revenge is mine.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: My question is to the chair rather than the witness.

Far be it from me to suggest what you might do on the committee—Dick Proctor is our person there—but would you be predisposed to accept the advice of our witnesses?

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Nystrom, we'd have to priorize our list of requests for the work this committee is asked to do. To have another one piled onto what we already have, it will be later rather than sooner. That's my own comment as chair. We have an awful lot of things, and we don't have that many days to sit. If it's a subcommittee, well, most people are on two committees and some are on three committees, and to have another subcommittee on top of everything is not as easy as making a suggestion and having an agreement and saying we're going to do it.

Not that what you're proposing is unimportant—it's very important, and the committee should be looking into it further—but to give you an answer today and lead you to believe that we're going to have another committee look at this especially.... I wouldn't be entirely truthful to you if I gave you to think we could do that.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: If I can just ask, at a minimum, we would really appreciate the opportunity to come back once the third-party review is completed.

The Chairman: Certainly.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I'm sure the PMRA is going to have an interest in making a presentation to you as well. It would be useful for everyone to have a clear understanding of where we come out with that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Who was involved in the third-party review?

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I thought you were done your time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, they've talked about the third-party review, and it's very interesting.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I guess I could sit here for the next hour and 20 minutes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do I get an answer, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Was it a point of order?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'd like to know who did the third-party review.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: It's under way at the moment. A private consulting firm has been hired. Over the Christmas holidays we worked very hard with Mr. Rock's office on the terms of reference. We also worked very hard with the PMRA and Mr. Rock's office to agree to a process that everybody was going to be comfortable with in terms of being unbiased.

There was a competition for a consulting business to actually win the contract. A small consulting firm from the Ottawa area has won the contract. We understand they're just now trying to get a handle on the basic information they'll need to pursue this and will be starting to contact people, we believe, within the next couple of weeks.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

I must say I was quite pleased with Mr. Nystrom's comments and the direction of his questioning right up until the end. It was a nice break from Mr. Borotsik's grandstanding and patronizing.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

An hon. member:

[Inaudible—Editor].

An hon. member: I will.

The Chairman: Do you have any questions?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you mind if I speak? Thank you.

The Chairman: Well, that's what we're waiting for.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Any one of the panel is certainly welcome to respond to this.

To build on some of the recommendations you've brought forward already, I tried to write down some of your comments—and as a layperson, help me along with it—on how the government side could help in the efficiency or expediting of this issue. I have written down two or three, but if you have some more actual tangible ways this committee can advise the minister on how he can help the industry, certainly I can appreciate the importance of it, coming from one of the largest fruit-producing belts in the country—that's the Georgian triangle—which is certainly from a fruit grower or an apple grower's perspective. So if you have some specifics, I'd certainly like to hear some more and have an opportunity to write those down. Thank you.

• 1025

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I don't want to incite you further, but Mr. Borotsik mentioned political activity, and I think we do want to be very careful about not upsetting the apple cart. We don't want to move to a system where we're going to come and knock on your door and say you go and lobby the minister to make sure that this product gets registered. That doesn't do us any good in the long run. So to be really clear, nobody's on for that.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm not asking that, but some of us are late people, so you kind of have to help me understand what I should be doing in your best interest.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: As I said, I think the kinds of things you can do as committee members and as MPs are simply to continue to ask, in many respects, the broad and generic questions, but in terms of management. The PMRA has to make reports to Parliament. Ask the questions about what the timeframes are, and try to get the good answers.

We're really hoping that the third-party review will be able to provide a lot of that information in a way such that nobody is going to be able to argue about the numbers. We wasted so much time last year arguing over numbers, and we don't want to do that any more. We want to get down to actually saying “Okay, here's the baseline: everybody agrees now that it takes this many days for a label change. We all know it's too many. What do we have to do to fix it?” Unfortunately, at this point we don't have that common understanding of what the baseline data is to be able to actually get everybody willing to sit down and agree that there's even a problem, in a lot of cases.

I think if we can try to move ahead that way.... And again we're really looking at management issues here; we're not asking anybody to interfere with the health and safety of the products. So I think continuing to ask pointed and hard questions about management, and not just within the PMRA, but within other areas as well, would do this industry an enormous amount of good. I think these are the kinds of things.

The kinds of questions we have an interest in are much too specific to try to list off today, but we'd be quite happy to provide you with the issues we've identified in the past and are identifying as we go on. Certainly we're putting together a package right now that we're hoping will be ready within a couple of weeks, sort of on issues. You'll be receiving it in the mail.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: For Mr. Dempster, if you give that package you have to the clerk, he could get it photocopied for everybody and save you trying to send it back.

Mr. Danny Dempster: Yes, I was going to.

I'll tell you some good news and some bad news. The good news is for the chairman: there are only eight products that are related to potatoes. The bad news for the honourable member from Georgian Bay is there are twenty products that relate to apples.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have one final question, and that brief might actually do it, because I haven't seen a copy of it yet. Is that an actual list of the products grown in the U.S. with pesticides that are not permitted in assisting growth here in Canada? Is that what the list is?

Mr. Danny Dempster: Basically, it's the list of organo-phosphates and carbamate that are being reviewed, as Mr. Cameron had indicated, by August 1999 where there's proposed revocation of the tolerance limits, and their uses on fruits and vegetables. It was relatively simple for me to take those products, see if they were registered here in Canada, and see what the uses were on fruits and vegetables in Canada. So it's restricted to the fruits and vegetables for now, but that's where the list came from.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, because of the time limitations, I'll ask some short questions and look for some short answers, if I could get them.

What I'd like to do is take the document that AGCare has put out—I think it's one of their most recent—and get you to respond to some of the things they say.

Before I get into that, I'd just like to ask you about one of the points they made, that they had a meeting with Allan Rock in October, and Allan Rock indicated that a caucus committee was being formed to deal with the PMRA. AGCare asked that farm organizations have an opportunity to meet with this caucus committee. Can you tell me a little bit about that? Has there been any meeting? Do you know anything about that?

• 1030

Mr. Ron Cameron: To my knowledge, there has not been a meeting. Back at the same time that AGCare published that information, I understood that a caucus committee had been established. At one time, I had a list of the people who were named, but I don't have it with me. As I understand it, in view of the fact that the third-party review was under way, it was decided that an approach to such a committee at this time might not be opportune, that we'd wait for the third-party review.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The first thing has to do with the PMRA budget. AGCare's comments are that the PMRA budget needs to be reduced, that there's still evidence that the PMRA is accomplishing less than the EPA and at greater cost, and that much of this concern could be addressed through harmonization. Your quick response to that: do you agree, disagree, and do you have any comments to add to it?

Mr. Ron Cameron: Again, I think a lot can be accomplished through harmonization, but there still remain exceptional Canadian data requirements that haven't been reconciled on an international basis and that haven't been reconciled with the United States. The goal of trying to get manufacturers and formulators to present their respective registrations in Canada and the United States at the same time is held up by those exceptional data requirements in Canada. That would truly be the achievement we'd be looking for.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Where's the hold-up, and why is that hold-up there? Is it in the PMRA?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I think it's exactly with the PMRA and their inability to bring a conclusion to some of the discussions that have been going on now for several years in this area.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The next issue is the consultation process on cost recovery, and this goes way beyond the PMRA. AGCare has said there is a “clear indication that the vast majority of respondents were opposed to fee increases”, and that there is “very little if any support offered to PMRA by environmental groups during the consultation period”. Do you support these statements or do you oppose them? Do you have any specific comments on them? And they're directed at any of you who want to answer.

Mr. Ron Cameron: Again, I think the AGCare information is very correct. Through the Access to Information Act, one of the producer groups in Ontario acquired all of the comments made during the cost-recovery discussions and during the reaction to the proposed regulation. I think there were a total of about 370 submissions made on the issue, and they were all positive against further cost recovery in the issue. There were no other comments from any other group that were reacting to say to go ahead, that cost recovery is what we need in order to do this job. There were none.

Mr. Leon Benoit: With regard to re-evaluation, their statement is that

PMRA has agreed not to re-evaluate on a three- to five-year timetable as proposed, but they still propose a review of active ingredients. This is duplicating work conducted in the U.S. and by the OECD.

Do you agree with that or disagree with it, and do you have any comments on it?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I agree with the comment that is being made. If we go back to the original budget that was proposed by the PMRA during the cost-recovery debate, it was a flatline type of budget extended over six years. As the work of harmonization was to diminish the amount of work done on new registrations, that gap was being filled by re-evaluations to hold the budget. We think that work should not need to be done in Canada if other jurisdictions are currently re-evaluating.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: If I could respond directly, another issue that I ran into personally is a domestic situation of duplication. I was asked by an individual from PMRA about the use of insecticides in grain cars. Without going through the toing and froing, my comments back to him were that the Canadian Grain Commission has been in charge of the quality of grain since 1912, and has done a good job of it, but it has PhDs on staff looking into the problems of insects in grain cars, so they should look at that.

• 1035

That didn't happen. This is why I'm so firmly convinced that we need a non-technical advisory committee, or whatever you want to call it, to watch for and identify those kinds of duplication, where one government agency has been doing it since 1912 and another government agency starts looking at it also.

That's just because I actually got the phone call, being involved in shipping of grain. Ask a non-technical person to respond who, in the short run, has a vested interested in cutting corners? What if that individual had gone to someone who was as non-technical but had a different view on this?

So that was scary. We think it should be based on science, not on anecdotal evidence that I would give in creating a short-term benefit for our company. That was quite disturbing to us.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's so critical. I don't think anybody would argue that it's absolutely critical that in fact these decisions are based on science, especially in a health regulatory system like this.

The other statement, which has kind of been answered here, was on backlog. They say the backlog must be reduced, and are concerned that the backlog is not going to be addressed because of the budget shortfall at PMRA. They have that concern.

Now, I think it's already been said that the problem is that perhaps too much time is being spent on the new products, because it shouldn't take that much time. A lot of the work I think is probably duplicated. More time then could be spent on dealing with the backlog. Is that the feeling on that?

Mr. Ron Cameron: The background, again, to that issue is that the backlog has been priced and paid for I think through three different accounts now, and has not been solved. There were special moneys set aside following the initial review to address the backlog. I think those moneys came from Agriculture Canada.

Now with cost recovery, in order to reduce cost recovery, Agriculture Canada came forward with more funds in order to solve the backlog. Now PMRA is saying they still can't address the backlog because they have other priorities that need to be addressed first.

The Chairman: Mrs. Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Edie, you just mentioned a non-technical advisory committee to avoid duplication or to rationalize operations. Could that kind of committee go so far as to recognize the qualifications of scientists, whether they were American or Canadian?

I listened to Mr. Cameron, who said that we should have access to existing data and avoid reinventing the wheel. In that context, in a change of culture, are we prepared to go as far as to recognize the qualifications of scientists, whoever they may be, in accordance with the given criteria?

[English]

Mr. Kenneth Edie: As I've said, we need a science-based regulatory agency. Our concern is that there seems to be a different perspective, because of the back history of both the United States and Canada, as to what that means. Certainly we need also to make sure that everybody understands, when a thing is done—and sometimes, more importantly, isn't done—the economic consequences to the people of Canada. That's why I personally am so much in favour of making sure we have the scientific knowledge and also that it is directed in a practical, non-duplicating way, whether it's domestically or internationally.

• 1040

I'm not qualified to make those judgments, because, as I said, we had the Canadian Grain Commission, with PhDs in entomology, there on a day-by-day basis. That's our ultimate in third-party review. The Canadian Grain Commission, incidentally, is totally paid for by the grains and oilseed producers of Canada. Yet they are independent.

We do have a high regard in the world for our products. I think this stock process needs to be carried on further.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I don't think the qualifications of the people at the Grain Commission are in question, but perhaps rather the mandates or objectives and criteria. Furthermore, perhaps we could reach a solution if we established stringent rules while remaining independent and sovereign. We could thus act in a disciplined way and require that duplication be avoided. Perhaps someone could add something to that.

[English]

Mr. Ron Cameron: I don't think the science of the PMRA has been questioned. The science is sound. I'm not sure good PhD scientists make good managers. As we've said, we need some beetle-nosed little accountant in there to tell them how to run their business. We think there could be a reconciliation between sound business practices in the agency and sound science. We would like to see action in that regard.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

First of all, I couldn't agree with you more. Management obviously has to be more sound. It sounds as if the administration there now is a university administration, an academic administration. We have to get more into management skills.

Mr. Dempster, you scared the living heck out of me with your analogy of the freight train that's coming forward right now. You also mentioned, and I caught.... I believe it's in August 1999 that the Americans are going to reclassify a number of the chemicals and pesticides they currently have there. Can you just foreshadow two things a little? First, what is the PMRA doing right now to be proactive on this particular reclassification? Secondly, if we're not prepared by August 1999, what are some of the downsides to this? Give us some of your black side on what could happen to us as an exporter into the United States.

Mr. Danny Dempster: Well, I didn't mean to frighten anybody, but—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure you did. That's why you brought the report.

Mr. Danny Dempster: The reality is that from the perspective of a Canadian producer there is the loss of tools, of technology, even to be able to produce. Assuming we are able to maintain those and the U.S. revokes all its tolerances, we immediately revert back to the default tolerance of zero parts per million. Therefore for anybody who exports any of these products, if there is even the remotest chance that there is 0.000000001, you're basically shut out of the market. That is the real potential. It has the potential to shut down the trade between both countries in most fruits and vegetables.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: My second question was what are we doing now, between now and August 1999, to react to this particular issue?

Mr. Danny Dempster: I would suggest that since I'm the one who prepared the first list, I can't totally respond to how people are dealing with it. It's one question we're trying to get down to, to find out who besides ourselves is showing a great interest—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Don't be so diplomatic with me.

Mr. Danny Dempster: I have to be. I worked here for 21 years.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I take it from that answer that the PMRA is not dealing with this specific issue.

Mr. Danny Dempster: In fairness to the PMRA—my diplomacy—we haven't had a chance to have that discussion with them yet.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Should they not, in their positions, know about this—

Mr. Danny Dempster: It's specific to these products.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: —and react to this particular issue? Should they have to be forced into it? Isn't that their job?

Ms. Sally Rutherford: To be fair, Danny is saying they are looking at the issue. But I get back to the point Ken has been making about having non-technical people there actually to try to deal with some of the realities of the impacts. They haven't proposed to us to sit down and have a chat about what the impacts might be and what kinds of questions the industry, whether it's the grains or the horticulture industry or any other affected industry...what the impact might be.

• 1045

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do we expect the Americans to be fair? I know that's a terrible question too, because they're never fair with respect to trade, but do you expect them to be understanding and fair to the Canadian situation when dealing with that review in August 1999?

Mr. Danny Dempster: Certainly that's part of what we're trying to entertain right now at these discussions with the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry at the national level to get to the root of this issue.

I suspect that any agreement we would have on a generic basis nationally would maybe go beyond the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry and get back to the latest congressman when the price goes down by using a different action in terms of the marketplace. That's my big fear.

The problem, in fairness to the PMRA, is that if they're trying to cope with this variety of issues right now and I shovelled this on top of the system, which is already trying to cope with whatever they're trying to cope with, this would shovel a lot more on the fork, and I don't know how they would cope with it. That's what we're trying to get at before it happens.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Mr. Chairman, in the American issue, as Prairie Pools, we have been meeting with the American Farm Bureau Federation to deal with trade irritants. Of course this is one of them that's on both sides. Again, it's one thing that as farmers in the United States and Canada we can come forward with and have a very consistent view on. We met with them three times, and we're meeting again in June.

There are elements in the U.S. with whom we can talk and work, and that's what we want to do. They are concerned with the EPA. They use that acronym in a way that changes the meaning of it, but I'm not going to use it here. There are things that we can do and we need to have these ongoing conversations because they are concerned too.

One thing that hasn't come up in our discussions has to do with the repeal of the Delaney clause, which meant the zero use of carcinogens. They got in through the residue thing. They have what they call a risk cup, depending on what you've been exposed to, and it's a lifetime. That's scary too. That's really scaring the Americans.

As I mentioned, we met with TWG, the technical working group, in June. Before the meeting, we met with some Americans, the citrus growers of Florida, the cranberry growers, and the canola association of the United States, which had a farmer from Idaho. They have some real concerns too. We can work with them, and we should. That's why I've come to the conclusion that we, the Americans, and the Mexicans need to have an input into the technical working group of what the downsides are. I don't think some of this is sometimes factored into people's thought processes.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Here's just another thing that AGCare said in their presentation here. They expressed the need for the economic management advisory committee. They stated how important that committee is. Then they expressed the concern that the PMRA seems reluctant to provide baseline data to the economic management advisory committee so they can measure performance. They go on to say that the PMRA has a very different perception of performance standards from that of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Ms. Rutherford, could you just respond to that? Anyone?

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I think Ken and Ron are members of EMAC, so they're probably better able to answer the question.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: Ron has been in this longer than I have.

Mr. Ron Cameron: I'll take a shot at it.

In order to establish where we are going and where the PMRA should be in the future, we have to know where we've been. To get the information from the PMRA as to what activity cost what dollars and what resources within their department has been a struggle that has been as yet unanswered.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think it's because they don't know—

Mr. Ron Cameron: I think there's an element.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —or do you think it's because they just aren't very open? I would just like your thoughts on that.

Mr. Ron Cameron: My suspicion is that some of the people at PMRA did not want to deal with an economic management advisory committee that would be looking over their shoulders, and there was initially an attempt to stifle those activities.

We've now been looking at it for several months. Since the advent of cost recovery, there have been, what, three meetings, four meetings?

Mr. Kenneth Edie: This one on the third will be the fifth.

• 1050

Mr. Ron Cameron: It took the first three meetings before they would even recognize what we were asking for. And now, I think, what you suggest is that it is not really possible to get a separation of activities within the PMRA as to what activity costs what.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How can they possibly provide a schedule of cost recovery if they don't know what the costs are for the different activities?

Mr. Ron Cameron: I think it's quite revealing that their budgetary targets have been grossly missed.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I've heard a lot of concern. The reason I refer to this AGCare document is that I've heard these same concerns expressed by ag groups across the country. This isn't just an issue for fruit and vegetable growers. It's a huge issue for farmers from really any kind of enterprise, and I've heard concerns that are really well presented by AGCare. I know there are many farm groups involved in AGCare and that's why I refer to their document, but to make this clear, it is an issue that is important to all farmers. I can safely say that.

With respect to the PMRA, one of the major concerns that's been expressed is that the PMRA is of course demanding cost recovery. A lot of people who have talked to me aren't convinced that the service is being provided at as low a cost as it might be, and with respect to cost recovery, I think one of the basic concepts or most fundamental.... I'm having a hard time grabbing the right words here today, but one of the key factors that would have to be considered, let's say, is that the cost is being provided in the most efficient and competitive way.

And yet this organization is not only not competitive, it doesn't allow anyone else to provide some of these services and their information isn't even available for scrutiny by committees such as the economic management advisory committee, or by anyone else for that matter. That has to be the real concern. And I think farmers and farm groups are right to have a real concern and to show a lot of concern about that.

The Chairman: Could you respond to that? Then we'll conclude with Mr. Calder.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: Just to repeat what I said earlier, I think there are the kinds of issues you can try to address as members of Parliament and members of the committee—and that's not just a PMRA issue—

Mr. Leon Benoit: No.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: —the whole issue of accountability for money spent and how cost recovery is implemented. Nobody likes to have to pay for things you used to get for free, but it really irks when you do have the sense that the numbers sort of got picked out of the air because there's not a good understanding of what the economic parameters are.

And we understand that this is a new system for government too. If you've never had to account for something—even on your farm—that way, it takes time. But we'd like to begin to see some rationality put into the management systems of the PMRA and other stand-alone agencies and departments in terms of how they're going to be working in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. It looks like we need to have the PMRA in here very soon.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thanks very much. I apologize about not spending a lot of time here this morning, but I'm bouncing around a number of different committees.

The cost recovery and actually the transparency of the finances of PMRA, the process of vote netting that was brought in through treasury, Ron, I'd like to know how that has been working. Because I agree with you, we need that little beetle-nosed auditor in there to make sure that people on PMRA are not wasting the money. We have the issue, the $4 million right now, which quite frankly I have a problem with as far as it coming out of the Department of Agriculture, because that means $4 million being taken away from other programs.

So these are all issues I'm looking at, and when they set up a budget for next year I want to make sure it's a zero balance budget, that it's not going to pull another $4 million out of the operation of the Department of Agriculture. I want to know what your comments are and how vote netting is working.

Mr. Ron Cameron: I guess my response would be that I agree with the premise. It's been unfortunate that through the cost-recovery debate the money came forward from other departments to salvage the PMRA at the levels desired in order to continue their performance and the resources they had. But again it was decided with this forthcoming that they would only be allowed to set a one-year budget. That was this year. Now we're into a third-party review and that review will not be out in time for them to go forward with their next year's budget. So we are committed again to moving that one-year target ahead again because we don't have the results of the third-party review.

• 1055

So they've gone through two years of basically keeping everybody in place without making any significant change, because those budgets have been one year, now two years, and we still haven't come to the crux of the problem. And it will be too late to review their budget for next year on the basis of the third-party review that's soon to come out.

Mr. Murray Calder: So what you're telling me then is the process of vote netting out of treasury should be carried on for another year.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: Mr. Rock announced that the PMRA's budget would only be in place for a year and that it would not be the longer-term budget that they had requested about a month ago. We're pleased that's happened—

Mr. Murray Calder: We're moving on that.

Ms. Sally Rutherford: —because we didn't think that having the third-party review at the same time as they were essentially being given carte blanche to spend as much money as they could scrape up was a really good way to proceed.

The Chairman: Before we conclude with Mrs. Ur, I want to remind members that we'll probably finish second reading on Bill C-26 Friday and we'll get it next week. So we'll probably have hearings on that next Thursday.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment on that, having the committee start to hear witnesses next week just isn't giving enough notice for us to get witnesses who we would like to have appear before the committee.

The Chairman: Have you notified any witnesses?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, we have talked to some people, but for them to make arrangements on that kind of notice—

The Chairman: Right now we have only one set of witnesses who have expressed any interest in appearing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There will be many more. At first there wasn't much reaction to the bill, and all of a sudden we've had just an awful lot of very negative reaction to the bill. We want people to have a chance to express their concerns and we need proper notice. A week's notice that the meetings are going to be next week just isn't enough, quite frankly.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When is that third-party review supposed to be completed?

Ms. Sally Rutherford: I think June is the target date. We've tried to be as open, honest, and flexible as we possibly could be while urging everybody to move as quickly as they possibly can, and I think we're looking for a late May or early June completion.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

Mr. Kenneth Edie: If I could comment on one of the things, when I was talking about management—and Ron has talked about having sharp accountants and dealing with sharp accountants quite a bit—we need more than that, we need managers. For instance, going back to my example of the Canadian Grain Commission and PMRA and insects in grain, I suggested to this person I was talking to that Union Carbide, now Praxair, had set up at their cost, at three of our elevators, injection of carbon dioxide into grain for the controlling of insects. This is a worldwide technology. Australia uses it regularly. We have one way of controlling insects in January in the prairies, and that's by turning the grain and freezing them out. However, we do need some. No interest there—that's not my role. My role is to look at the use of phostoxin in grain and so on and so forth.

So that's why we need outside people who see the situations of saving money. With the CFA last March we put on with Prairie Pools a conference in Winnipeg to talk about integrated pest management and some of these cost savings and not using chemical pesticide things for a whole range of things. That doesn't get the kind of focus and attention I think it should because there's real potential there for a number of ways of dealing with things other than this. But it just needs a management structure in place. Again, I say, at the end of the day the government is going to govern. However, sometimes it's not brought forward in better ways of doing things.

• 1100

The Chairman: Okay.

Thank you all very much for coming in this morning. It was very informative.

The meeting is adjourned.