AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

1530

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.))

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Acting Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

The Chair

1535

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1540

1545

Dr. Imme Gerke (Minor Use Advisor, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

1550

1555

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

1600

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

1605

Mr. Richard Aucoin (Acting Chief Registrar, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Richard Aucoin

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

1610

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

1615

Mr. Peter Morrison (Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Mr. Neil Maxwell (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

1620

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Larry McCormick

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

1625

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Larry McCormick

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1630

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1635

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Neil Maxwell

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

1640

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neil Maxwell

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neil Maxwell

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

1645

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

1650

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bob Speller

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Bob Speller

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1655

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Neil Maxwell

Mr. Peter Morrison

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1700

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Larry McCormick

1705

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Larry McCormick

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1710

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

1715

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Neil Maxwell

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

1720

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 050

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we want to thank you for your presence here today. We have, I anticipate, a rather interesting afternoon before us.

We have once again come together to look at the whole issue of pesticide registration. With us today we have witnesses from the PMRA, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

I guess what brings us together is the fact that this has been an ongoing saga for a good number of years—in fact too many more than we'd like to even think about. This is an issue that, once and for all, we have to either determine to resolve or find a way to do something else, because what we've been doing has not been working.

We expect a frank and open dialogue this afternoon. Some of the questions may be very pointed, and from time to time if I, as your chair, determine that the answer has not been sufficiently addressed, I may call on the commissioner or on the PMRA to respond. So we may have some cross-dialogue this afternoon. Today we have everyone at the table, and I think that's important to address this issue.

I don't want to send smoke signals just yet, but I do believe that it's important that we find resolution to this very difficult issue, because we are pressured from the industry, as the primary producers, and of course we're pressured by other Canadians as well.

From the PMRA we have Wendy Sexsmith, who is now the acting executive director; Imme Gerke, minor use adviser; and Richard Aucoin, acting chief registrar. Let me know if I'm not pronouncing those names correctly, as I'll try to use your surnames. Of course, we have Johanne Gélinas, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, with us once again. From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, we have Mr. Neil Maxwell and Mr. Peter Morrison. Welcome, all.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that PMRA wants to go first. Wendy, are you first?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Acting Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): I'm completely neutral on this.

The Chair: Who is first?

¹ (1535)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Do you want me to go first? Okay.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss chapter 1 of the 2003 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The commissioner undertook her study in part as a result of a request from this committee for the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a value-for-money or performance audit of the management practices, control, and reporting systems of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

I welcome the commissioner's comments that a sound framework for evaluating pesticides has been developed and that progress has been made since the establishment of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in 1995 within Health Canada. Furthermore, I believe we have a sound process in place that safeguards the health and the environment of Canadians.

[Translation]

Generally speaking, we agree with many of the Commissioner's recommendations. As you can see from the department's responses to these recommendations, which you will find in the report, measures have either been planned or been taken, or are now being carried out.

[English]

However, there are areas where we differ with the commissioner's conclusions, and many were addressed last week, when Health Canada and the commissioner met with the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding the government's ability to protect health and the environment from pesticides. At that time, our remarks were focused on the protection of health and the environment, temporary registrations, re-evaluation, and compliance.

Today we will focus on the commissioner's comments regarding the government's ability to provide farmers access to new, safe, and effective products. As part of my presentation, I will also be updating you on re-evaluation and registration with an emphasis on the progress we have made in the area of minor use products.

Before I do that, a major accomplishment I would like to highlight is the new Pest Control Products Act, which was given royal assent in December 2002 and is targeted for proclamation in the spring of next year. The new act further strengthens health protection by requiring additional special protection for infants and children; makes the registration system more transparent by allowing access to detailed information on pesticides; strengthens post-registration controls of pesticides by requiring pesticide companies to report adverse effects and sales data; requires the re-evaluation of older pesticides every 15 years; and, finally, provides increased powers of inspection and higher maximum penalties when pesticides are not marketed or used in accordance with the law.

[Translation]

The new legislation and the additional resources provided for will make it possible to progress even further in regulating pesticides in Canada. In fact, the new legislation is critical to the process of implementing some of the specific measures recommended by the Commissioner in her report.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my remarks, it's important to point out that Health Canada's first priority respecting pesticides is the protection of health and the environment. Before a pesticide is registered for use in Canada, it undergoes a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure its use will not pose an unacceptable risk to either human health or the environment. We do make every effort to achieve this, however, in as efficient and effective manner as possible.

The commissioner acknowledged that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has been able to eliminate the backlog of unfinished evaluations that we inherited when we were created. Having eliminated the backlog, we have maintained that elimination of the backlog. For example, in 2002 PMRA received 3,223 submissions and made 3,318 decisions, indicating that submissions are not accumulating.

The commissioner also pointed out significant improvement in the rigour and timeliness with which we process submissions. For example, there has been a reduction in the total time to registration for submissions of new actives and products, which pre-agency averaged about 1,588 days. As the commissioner pointed out, for the same category of products, the total time to registration averaged 748 days in 2002-03. This is a substantial improvement in the total time to registration, the time that is most critical to users of new pesticides.

A key to this is our highly structured management system that provides for specific timelines, for specific types of submissions, and a requirement for a complete data package. It also provides for the screening of that package to ensure that all the required studies are there and for a pre-review assessment of the studies to ensure that the studies are valid. A series of different programs allows for the priority review of specific types of pesticides, such as reduced-risk pesticides or biocides or joint reviews with the U.S.

In the report a reference was made to overdue submissions, some by almost three years. To clarify this situation, I wish to point out that submissions do not sit for three years. If the submissions are of poor quality, the registrants will be required to provide additional data. Time is required for them to develop and provide the data and for PMRA to review the data. As a result, the time required to reach a final decision will be longer than if a submission was of good quality.

With regard to our ability to consistently meet performance standards, typically the targets are met 85% to 90% of the time for new active ingredients and new uses. Our timelines did average 74% to 85% for those two groups of submissions over the last fiscal year, the period analyzed by the commissioner's office. I would note that this level of performance is still equal to or better than most OECD countries.

[Translation]

While we make every effort to meet our deadlines, many factors are beyond the Agency's control, including the sheer number, complexity and quality of applications in a given year, as well as unforeseen problems such as West Nile virus.

¹ (1540)

[English]

The commissioner pointed out that efficiency gains have not been achieved with respect to joint reviews. I agree that when we work with the United States on joint reviews and other types of reviews, such as re-evaluation, there is a management and coordination cost to both countries, but both countries feel that the benefits are worth it. With respect to re-evaluation where we work closely with the U.S., the target is to re-evaluate 405 older pesticides by 2006-07, lining up with the target for completion in the U.S. The enhanced program makes greater use of recent evaluations completed in other countries, particularly the United States, in order to be as efficient as possible.

Additional resources have been provided to PMRA to help meet this target. As of March 2003, 61 active ingredients and their end-use products were addressed, and to date 64 active ingredients and their end-use products have been addressed. Reviews of an additional 22 active ingredients have been completed and will be consulted on shortly. It is expected that about 40% of the re-evaluations will be completed by next spring.

With regard to the commissioner's concern regarding slowness, this re-evaluation program is in line with re-evaluation programs of the U.S. and our other OECD partners, most of which have a similar schedule.

With respect to joint reviews with the U.S., since 1996, under the North American Free Trade Agreement technical working group on pesticides, we have registered 49 active ingredients and end-use products, either jointly or through work share with the U.S. That includes 23 reduced-risk agricultural chemicals, four microbials, two pheromones, and 20 traditional chemicals. Again, I might add, that means end-use products and active ingredients.

These programs have resulted in more timely access to new technology to Canadian growers—grains and oilseeds and horticulture—as well as harmonized maximum residue limits for residues in food for almost all the decisions, resulting in minimizing trade barriers. Most major pesticide companies in Canada have, or are participating in, joint reviews. I compliment the manufacturers that have participated, and I certainly encourage others to submit jointly to Canada and the U.S. Joint review activities have made a major contribution to the increased availability of reduced-risk pesticides and minor uses.

Recent submissions of new active ingredients and end-use products have included a large number of registered uses, sometimes as many as a hundred uses, as a result of the initial submission. This has led to the availability of new products for minor uses in Canada earlier in the product cycle than has previously been the case.

Secondly, registrants are increasingly organizing their field trials and resulting data, so that they can request registration for crop groups or crop subgroups rather than individual crops.

Joint review activities resulted in the registration of 368 out of a total of 743 minor uses that were registered in 2002-03. This means that instead of reviewing minor use applications one by one in later years, most of the work is completed with the initial submission. What we think is that efficiencies are being achieved, but in a different way from what was predicted.

Mr. Chairman, this committee in its study raised concerns about farmers' access to pest control products. Health Canada has made progress on its goal of enhancing access to newer, safer technology and alternatives, including reduced-risk products and biopesticides. We have put in place a number of programs to encourage companies to submit reduced-risk products for priority review that allow more rapid market access to these products. These programs have enjoyed considerable success. Of the active ingredients designated as reduced-risk in the U.S., 73% have either been submitted or are now registered in Canada. So far in 2003-04, 27 new active ingredients and end-use products have been registered, 13 of which were reduced-risk.

¹ (1545)

With respect to minor uses, we advised you that a total of 743 minor uses, 320 specifically for agricultural crops, were registered in 2002-03 through a variety of programs. In the first six months of this fiscal year, 201 minor uses have been registered, 148 of which were for agricultural crops.

In addition, during the past six months, PMRA has also completed 49 pre-submission consultation requests; reviewed 32 submissions for minor uses, leading to 49 new uses; and has established with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada a working group to deal with the new reduced-risk and minor-use program. This working group has met many times to discuss operational issues and work plans.

In addition to resources provided for activities related to the implementation of the new PCPA, PMRA has also received resources for reduced-risk products, including products for minor use. Staff have now been hired, and have undertaken a training development and extensive orientation program, with on-the-job training.

With regard to human resources, PMRA has in place an annual business planning process and associated staffing and recruitment strategies, with annual and three-year projections. To support new and existing staff, PMRA has in place a continuous learning program, a development program, as well as an orientation program for all new staff.

To maintain quality control, study evaluations undergo peer review and manager review and sign-off. Final decisions are made by senior science committees.

Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, PMRA has made substantial progress in the area of access to newer and safer technology, and in my view will continue to make progress by continuing to refine our processes and management systems, ensuring the best science, and certainly working with all stakeholders, including growers and industry, as well as our international partners.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to ask Dr. Gerke, the minor-use adviser, to provide an update.

[Translation]

Dr. Imme Gerke (Minor Use Advisor, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on certain coordination, data gathering and registration activities that have been undertaken since my last presentation in June 2003.

With the help of growers and scientists working in the field, I have focussed my attention primarily on helping to organize and coordinate the activities of stakeholders across Canada and in the United States.

¹ (1550)

[English]

The minor-use initiative targets the label expansion of products already registered in Canada, products registered in the U.S. but not yet in Canada, and products the pesticide industry plans to submit for registration in the near future. Any new, proposed minor use of a product has to be selected by growers, has to receive confirmation of support from the company that owns the product, has to be described scientifically in a data package, and these data have to be reviewed before PMRA can grant its registration. The preparation of data packages is part of the new responsibility of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but can still also be done by growers if they wish to do so.

Many stakeholders are actively involved in the minor-use initiative: growers and their associations; crop and pest control specialists; provincial minor-use coordinators; AAFC's pest management centre and many of its research stations; private research groups and analytical contract labs; pesticide companies; and finally, the regulators.

Furthermore, to eliminate trade irritants and to avoid new ones and to save money and time involved in the preparation of data packages and their subsequent review, the Canadian initiative works closely with its U.S. counterpart. This means that coordination is really a crucial concern in the whole process.

[Translation]

Since a number of stakeholders are involved in the different stages of the process, it's not merely enough for each group to manage its own activities and responsibilities. Action must be taken within a reasonable period of time, so that the persons involved in the next stage of the process can also do their work within a reasonable time frame. In agriculture, “reasonable” means having to adjust to the growing seasons.

[English]

Two crucial aspects have to be well coordinated to achieve maximum results—information and time. To manage information transfer, PMRA has put together sample documents for the preparation of pre-submission consultation requests and for the compilation of data packages.

When asking for a pre-submission consultation in order to better understand specific data requirements, growers, provincial minor-use coordinators, Agriculture Canada, and the industry can now fill in these sample documents. The usefulness of this approach has already proven itself through a clear reduction in the back and forth between stakeholders to clarify details in the planned projects. The data packages provide the information upon which risk and value assessments are based.

To facilitate the analysis of data and their submission, PMRA is preparing sample documents for data generation to meet all types of data requirements.

To make sure that all stakeholders have sufficient time to complete their tasks and to conclude as many activities as possible in a single year, Agriculture Canada, PMRA, the provinces, and industry are discussing working schedules that will work for all parties.

[Translation]

Over the next six months, I will be supporting the efforts of growers to work with other growers, both nationally and internationally, helping them choose which pesticides to use and conveying their comments to the pesticides industry.

Because responsibilities will be shared, regular updates on progress in this field will be provided, new products will be developed, growers will be better prepared to make decisions about potential product use and they will be better informed of the anticipated commercial impact of the product and of the complexity of the registration process.

[English]

On a last note, the expression “minor use” is quite misleading. Of the about 600 crops grown in Canada, more than 580 are so-called minor crops; consequently, the time and resources PMRA spends on these crops is rather major. This is especially true when taking into account all of the different registration programs.

Thank you very much.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I believe we'll now move to Madame Gélinas.

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development): Good day, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I am here today to present our findings on Managing the Safety and Accessibility of Pesticides. This is one chapter in my third annual report, which was tabled on October 7 last. With me today are my key management staff responsible for this audit, namely Neil Maxwell and Peter Morrison. Peter was responsible for the audit from start to finish.

For those of you who do not know me, I lead a group in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. We seek to support parliamentarians in overseeing the federal government's efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development. Our goal is to provide you and other Canadians with objective, independent analysis of the federal government's progress. Where necessary, we make recommendations for further action.

In May 2002, this committee tabled its report on the pesticide registration process. You recommended:

[...] that the Auditor General of Canada conduct a value-for-money, or performance audit, to examine the management practices, controls and reporting systems of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

I am very glad to be able to report today on our findings relating to the concerns expressed by the committee. Much of our audit focussed on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, a branch of Health Canada. However, we ranged further, examining other branches of Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada.

[English]

We found that the PMRA has made some significant improvements since its creation; however, in all of the areas we examined, we found weaknesses too numerous to describe in these opening remarks.

As a reference to and quick overview of our chief concerns, we have provided you with an expanded version of the chapter's table of contents. If you turn to the table of contents, you will see some of our key concerns. Let me highlight a few for you.

In terms of the re-evaluation of all pesticides, basic management tools have not been used. With respect to providing access to new pesticides, plant performance gains have not been achieved. In terms of the agency's internal management, we found that human resources management continues to be difficult.

Overall, I concluded that the numerous weaknesses raised serious questions about the management of risks to health and the environment associated with pesticides.

The most serious concern in my report is the slowness of progress in re-evaluating older pesticides. Some of these pesticides were first registered decades ago when standards were less stringent and less was known about the effect of pesticides.

There are 405 pesticides contained in thousands of commercial products that the PMRA has pledged to re-evaluate by 2006. The government has been working on some of these re-evaluations for more than ten years. All of those pesticides that have been fully re-evaluated have either been removed from the market or have had restrictions placed on their use.

As an example of how standards have changed, insecticides using phorate, an organophosphate, were first registered in 1969, and the re-evaluation concluded that this substance causes extremely high environmental risks, risks that may not have been evaluated when it was first registered. The result is a proposal to phase out this product by December 2004.

The PMRA must not only manage the risks associated with all pesticides, it is also committed to providing timely access to new, possibly safer pesticides that could replace pesticides that are being removed from the market.

We found that the PMRA has significantly improved the rigour and timeliness with which it processes pesticide submissions compared with practices before the agency's creation. We also found, however, that it is not consistently meeting its own targets for timeliness in processing submissions. In 2002-03 it did not meet its targets in any of the major categories of submissions.

Access to minor-use pesticides has been a particular concern for some farmers. Again, the agency has not met its own target for how quickly it evaluates minor-use pesticides. In March 2003 about a quarter of the evaluations were behind schedule. The federal government has pledged new resources to improve the accessibility of minor-use pesticides, but we found gaps and delays in setting up the arrangements to spend these funds effectively.

We also noted that the PMRA has difficult management challenges with respect to human resources. The most important, in our view, is the need to manage the almost 70% increase in staff--from 367 at the end of 2001-02 to about 620--for responsibilities associated with the new act, and the accompanying new resources.

The agency has provided only limited information on its performance. Its management does not track the cost of handling individual submissions or groups of submissions. We encourage the agency to include a fair and full summary of its activities in the annual report required under the new act, including quantitative information about its performance on new submissions and re-evaluations.

º (1600)

[Translation]

In my view, decisive action is needed to address the range of weaknesses we identified. The responses to my recommendations by the PMRA and others gave little indication that they intend to act decisively. For example, we recommended that the Agency develop and implement a program to manage its large influx of new employees and to ensure that quality is maintained in the evaluation process.

In its response, the Agency accepted the recommendation, but said no additional actions are planned. Action is also needed in areas besides those our recommendations singled out. Are the Agency and others prepared to clearly commit to addressing each weakness we identified, with particular attention to the key issues such as re-evaluations? Will they put in place detailed actions plans to resolve the weaknesses and to respond to our recommendations -- action plans with concrete measures and demanding deadlines?

Mr. Chairman, this is a time of transition in the way pesticides are managed in Canada. There is new legislation, new funding and new expectations. I hope that the federal government can now correct some of the weaknesses of the past. But I believe it is important to track its progress closely.

This committee has already played an important role in identifying problems and seeking solutions. I hope that our findings and our recommendations will further contribute to that process. I would be happy to discuss ways for us to support the committee's work.

On that note, thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any comments to be made by Mr. Morrison or Mr. Maxwell?

I should point out, as questions are asked of our panel of witnesses here today, when there is what appears to be a contradiction or lack of clarity on a matter, one should indicate to the chair that they want to respond and I will try to bring those parties into the equation.

Mr. Ritz, you are on for seven minutes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing here today.

We're in a bit of a quandary. Again, the Auditor General has come down with a report that's quite damning, the fourth one in 15 years, and we don't see a lot of action from the PMRA in cleaning up its own house. There seem to be a lot of new resources and money being tossed around but not being used adequately at this point. Hopefully, that's going to change very quickly.

I'm looking at a lot of your information here, and one thing that came through a lot in the PMRA presentation was that you're working very closely with your U.S. counterparts. Did I get that right? Okay. Then can you explain to me why we seem to be having...? I've been involved for eight or nine years in a battle to import generic glyphosate--it's an American product called Clearout 41--yet the target that the PMRA calls for data on keeps changing. We've been fighting this battle year after year. Why, if you are working so closely with the States? They've put through all of the background information. All of the data is there. Is their testing not adequate? Is that the problem?

º (1605)

Mr. Richard Aucoin (Acting Chief Registrar, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): If I can answer that question, on the subject of Clearout 41, one of the key requirements of that product is to make sure we're talking about a chemically equivalent product. That sort of test has not been satisfied yet, that the company has determined it's a chemically equivalent product.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So the American testing is not adequate?

Mr. Richard Aucoin: No, it's not a question of adequacy of American testing. It's a question of demonstrating that it's the same product that's going to be registered in Canada.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: But the test should tell you that. You have the chemical breakdown, you have all the rates of application, and all of that. What component is missing?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: If I can interject here, I think it's important to understand that under the Pest Control Products Act in Canada, a registrant has to provide data to show that the product is safe or that the risks are acceptable. In this case, we have a program called “home-use import”, and under that regulation it's up to the person who's trying to get this exempted from registration in Canada to prove that it's equivalent to an already registered product in Canada. They have not yet been able to do that.

That's the situation in the case you've raised.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: That's the quandary I find myself in, Ms. Sexsmith. The testing is done. They're accepting this product in the States for the same application the other product is used for in Canada. Why would you have to reinvent the wheel? If you're working so closely with the Americans and their science is sound and we want them to accept our science on issues, why are we not accepting theirs?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We haven't actually had any science yet. So this group has to show that this product is equivalent to an already registered product--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: And that's a $250,000 cost for the testing and so on. I've seen the documentation on it.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, I don't think the cost is that high for what they have to do on that. That's actually the test they have to provide.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: And who would do that for them?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There are laboratories that can do that kind of work.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I've also seen documentation from your office, letters and so on, that say you would not recognize an outside laboratory.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, but that's completely false.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Well, I guess I'll have to dig back through my files.

I'm still in a quandary here. I look at another product that Ontario apple producers have been trying to bring in since 2000, the 1-MCP SmartFresh it's called. And you're saying the backlog has been addressed and so on. What specifically is the holdup there?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We actually didn't get an application until March of this year. For these types of products, this would be considered a reduced risk product. Normally we would do this product in about 15 months, and that was the situation. A research permit was granted in the fall, so we are now working on this product and it would be scheduled for completion sometime in the spring.

I think it's important to add that this product was submitted in the U.K. in 2000 and it was just registered recently.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Do you have a priority list you work from, or is it just first-come, first-served?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We have a series of programs whereby products can be given priority review. A reduced-risk product gets a priority review. If it's a microbial or a biopesticide of some kind, we have a door for that. If it's a small-use product that's already registered somewhere else in the world recently and those reviews or that work from that country are available, it's possible to have a priority review.

So there are a number of doors into which these products can be submitted to get a priority review.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Now, you're having new human resources and new funding allocated. Is the shortfall in the testing side or in the administration side? Have you identified which one will be a priority?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I actually don't understand your question.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Well, there's a backlog. Everybody agrees. The Auditor General is saying there's still a backlog and so on. Is it at the testing level or is it at the administration level?

º (1610)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, without getting into a “he said, she said” situation--or in this case, I guess, it's a “she said, she said” situation--what I tried to indicate in my opening remarks was that every year we get about 3,000 submissions, and every year we make about 3,000 decisions, so we don't have a backlog.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I guess that's a matter of discussion. It will be interesting to carry that point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm wondering if the commissioner has any comment on that response. I'm not sure that I'm quite clear as to what she said. What did she say?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The only thing I can add to that, Mr. Chairman, is that it's right, there's an improvement in the timeliness, but still there are some evaluations of new submissions that are overdue. We are talking about 33%, and I guess it's 25% when we're talking about minor-use pesticides, and this is still something that needs to be addressed.

When you're asking the question about what the root causes are for that slow pace, I may say that no matter if we're talking about improvement or not, the reality is still that more things need to be done. There's certainly an internal management issue. If you want, some of my colleagues can give you some detail on that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Plamondon, you're on next for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): According to the Commissioner's report, when information is missing from the files, instead of refusing to license a product, your Agency often grants a temporary registration, which means that the potential effects of the pesticide on human health are not always known.

Since your job is to protect people's health and the environment by minimizing risk, do you feel that you are being harshly criticized for issuing temporary registrations without fully knowing all of the consequences and environmental effects of the product in question?

[English]

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: First of all, it's really important to understand that nobody applies for temporary registration. We only accept a package where data are complete. We screen that package to make sure all the pieces are there. We pre-review all the studies to make sure the studies are acceptable. We evaluate all of the science that relates to health, environment, and efficacy--more than 200 studies--in the new pesticide packages. At the end of that process, if we're in the process of making a decision, there may in fact be some confirmatory information that is needed. A temporary registration may in fact be granted at that point, but only if the risks to health and the environment are acceptable.

The registrant would be given a certain amount of time to generate that information. That information would then be submitted to the agency and we would review that information and make a final decision. And I must stress that registrations are only given if the risks are acceptable. Out of the thousands of products that we now have registered, 97% of them have full registrations, and that goes to the point that the temporary registrations may be given. If the risks are acceptable, registrants have to generate data, they have to come back in, and we'll review it and make a full decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Commissioner, on page 9 of your report, you refer to the “heavy use of temporary registrations”, something I talked about in my first question. You note the following: “For some temporary registrations, the missing information was to have been included with the original submission”. You go on to say that had the information been included, the temporary registration would not have been granted. Could you comment further on paragraph 1.37 on page 9 of your report?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I'll let my colleague provide you with additional explanations. Let me begin by saying that we are concerned about the heavy use of temporary registrations. Our data shows that 58 per cent of new pesticides were granted temporary registrations, so we need to explore the reasons why the Agency is choosing this route so many times.

As for the paragraph you quoted, I'll let my colleague Peter Morrison explain further. Thank you.

º (1615)

[English]

Mr. Peter Morrison (Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): We did a review of the PMRA's files and recent registrations and we identified in those files several situations where studies that were called for by the PMRA's requirements, such as studies on the toxicity to reproductive systems or on the impacts on birds, were not provided in the original submission.

One of the consequences of that, of course, is that the PMRA then needs to make a decision about what to do with that missing information. And they may make assumptions--those assumptions may be conservative in some cases, and they may not be conservative in other cases--to compensate for the fact that they don't have the information they originally called for.

Mr. Neil Maxwell (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chair, the issue certainly isn't that temporary registrations don't have a place. Our concern, as the commissioner was saying, is the heavy use of them.

Our view is that PMRA needs to look at how they could reduce the use of that. And the member's question actually gets to one of the opportunities.

Those were instances that we cited where right up front PMRA noted that certain studies were required but they continued on with the registration process and ended up issuing a temporary registration and they still hadn't obtained those studies.

So more diligence up front should reduce the amount of reliance on temporary registration.

The Chair: Would you confer with that, Ms. Sexsmith?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: What I will say is we have a very rigorous process. We only accept complete data packages. We make sure those packages are complete. We pre-review it. I'm not sure of the cases that are being cited, so I can't talk about those specific issues, but certainly what I would say is we encourage the registrants to provide us with complete packages, and we actually don't let them in our system unless we consider them complete. And we're the only country in the world that does a secondary review on the submissions. So we are very careful.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Commissioner, you also note in your report that many users fail to comply with the Pest Control Products Act and that in your estimation, it is unrealistic to think that users will follow such things as directions on labels. You further note that the Agency grants restricted licences for certain products, but that once users have the product in hand, they throw caution to the wind and use the product however they see fit.

Therefore, if we cannot rely on users to follow the directions on product labels, what steps do you recommend be taken to ensure compliance?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, we're not saying that users are not following directions on the labels. The reference in the report is to certain studies conducted by the Agency which show that users do not always follow directions for use. What we do state more clearly is that the Agency has no idea of the level of compliance with directions on product labels. We do know of some cases, for example, onion growers, where based on information supplied by the Agency, in 18 of 20 cases, if memory serves me well, growers used an unregulated pesticide or one that had been approved for another purpose.

Why is it so important to gauge the extent to which users are following product label directions? Because to evaluate risk, the Agency works on the assumption that users are following the directions for use. And if they are not, it's important for the Agency to know that when it does evaluate risk.

º (1620)

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Sort of like the pesticide police.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McCormick, seven minutes.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

It seems up till now, in my opinion only, that we could replay tapes from the last two or three visits with the PMRA, because I've heard nothing new here.

Regarding the commissioner, it's very alarming actually to hear and to read about the slow progress of re-evaluating the older pesticides. The fact is that the government...we've been working on some of this for more than ten years. Then we might hear the alarming statistic that the ones that have been reviewed have been pulled off the market.

I'd like to ask the PMRA why.... Maybe I should put it this way. Some of those older pesticides, I am sure, would be in use in the United States, the U.K., or wherever. This is an emergency situation, it would seem to me, so we never want to take the word of our neighbours. We have to redo everything that every other professional in this globe does. This may be right in most cases, but in the case of all these older pesticides, why would we not immediately go to their labs, see what they're doing and start moving on this? Why do we have to wait for years to make any progress on this, Mr. Chair?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'm really glad you asked that question. In fact, we're working very closely with the U.S., not only on new products but also on re-evaluation. Two of the four programs under our re-evaluation program are essentially directly tied to progress made in the U.S. In answer to your question, then, we are taking the results of the U.S. work on the older pesticides and using them in context with Canada to make our decisions.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much. It sounds like we're making a bit of progress.

Mr. Chair, the PMRA has always asked us for more money. They have more money. The Auditor General's department has more money. I ask this sincerely. This looks like a power trip. We have two different camps here, everybody hits the other person. I'm not sure that we, as Canadians, are hearing all the facts because it's “they say, they say”.

An hon. member: She said, she said.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I wasn't going to go as far as my colleague about who said, who said.

I'd like to get a comment from both the senior people. Is the PMRA capable of getting this in order so they can comply with the safety of our Canadian people? How quickly can the PMRA get up to...? I mean, we're years behind now, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: That's not the way to look at it. If you look at previous work we have done in the past and the progress that has been made, for example, with the database on pesticide sales and use, and if you look at other aspects, like re-evaluation, the slow pace of progress, is it an indication of what will happen in the future? I don't know. But instead of getting into “he said, she said”, we should look at the future. Basically, what we are seeking is to make sure that we will have some warranties that this time we're going to get it right.

In our recommendation, for example, we're asking for concrete, detailed action plans for re-evaluation of exactly what will be done. In this country, we don't have a priority list of pesticides that should be re-evaluated. Will that list fit the one that has been developed in the U.S.? We don't know. There are so many things that we don't know.

If you, like me, were able to have a clear game plan, it would be much easier in the future to track progress and make sure that year after year we're able to make our own judgments as to whether it's too slow, too fast. I guess it will never be too fast when we talk about pesticides that we don't know are safe or not but are still on the market. So we need warranties for the future. That's what I'm looking for.

º (1625)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I guess what I'd like to say is that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in Canada has made a huge amount of progress. I've been working in pesticides all of my life, crazy as it may seem, and in the past seven or eight years, we have been able to really move forward. We have a re-evaluation program, we're registering new products, we have very good science, we have great scientists, we're working very closely with the U.S.

On the growers side, to use an example, we've probably changed the access to new products from about six years down to one to two years' difference between the U.S. and Canada.

So I think in many ways a lot of progress has been made, and I, like the commissioner, would like to look forward. I'm not here today to debate, really, the “he said, she said” thing. I'd really like to answer your questions so we can get facts on the table.

Thank you.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the issue of the grower, the producer, the person who does the work and supplies the capital and gets the least amount of money, I heard about this apple-fresh product, which of course makes me think about the apple business in which I spent about twenty years, eight days a week, and had a lot of fun. But we've heard now that this product is cleared and okay in the U.K.

We don't seem to want to accept any tests and verifications from the U.S., even though we import the same products. I've heard this story for years. But what about this one particular product? If they have clarified it and it's okay to use it in the U.K., will we move that along immediately? Surely your lab can tell it's the same product as is being put on offer here.

I don't want to see all the work put on the side of the chemical company, because who loses? Our producers. And in agriculture and agrifood, the producer is the person who's important for all of us. I think we're all consumers in this room.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I have a couple of short comments. One is that we're really encouraging companies to submit to us jointly, so these kinds of situations don't happen.

The second comment I would make is that all the time we use the results from other countries. In the one MCP case, we are reviewing the information both from the U.S. and the U.K. but our review will not be completed until early next year.

The Chair: Mr. Ritz, you're on for five minutes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering, can you build us all a future on a shaky past? This is the fourth damning report. As Larry said, we hear this again and again. Do you have a plan in place? Have you a vision out there that says this will turn around in six months, a year, two years? That's what the Auditor General seems to be asking for, and I don't see that in any of the reports we've had. Have you had time to start to analyze what you need to do?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I guess as a general point, we responded to all of the recommendations in the commissioner's report, and we indicated with some that we've already done so, with some that we'll certainly do so, and with some that we're in the process of doing so. So we don't have any issue with those.

As far as the plan goes, the short answer to that is yes, we're planning all the time. One of the important issues, though, particularly for this group, is that we do need to have submissions in order to register things. We are working as fast and as hard as we possibly can, with the resources we have, to get our evaluations completed on time. We are working very hard to work towards our deadline on the 2006-07 re-evaluation date.

We're working very closely with the U.S., so that we can make decisions on both new and old products at the same time. We're also working with our international partners beyond the U.S., so that we can use the information coming from those countries and be more efficient.

So the short answer to your question is yes, but that would sort of shape our vision.

º (1630)

Mr. Gerry Ritz: But you're also saying in certain instances here that you don't recognize the science from those other countries, or it seems to me that's what you're saying, so we may have to reinvent it.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: If you thought that's what I said, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

All countries involved in the regulation of pesticides work very closely together, and we share the results of the reviews of data we get from industry. But what all countries do is they reserve the right at that point to make the final decision.

So the answer to the question of whether we accept other countries' information and results is yes. But we need to have time to look at those results, and then make a decision that's appropriate for Canada, in this case.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So you have a data list telling you exactly what's in that can, regardless of what the label says. The Americans say “This is what's in here”, and you accept that fact.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Just to be clear, if there's a product registered in the U.S. and there's interest in having it registered here, we would need to have a submission for that product with all the relevant data. What makes it—

Mr. Gerry Ritz: But the Americans give you that data. Here's the sheet.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, no. The Americans don't; that's the thing. It has to come from the registrant, the company. It's the company's responsibility to provide us that.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: All right, it's the company then. I'm saying it's the U.S. government, but you're saying it's the company. Fine.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The company, yes.

In addition, what they can do is provide the results of the government review in the U.S., and we'll certainly use that. But in the end, just like in the U.S., we make our own decision based on that information.

When we work together, industry submits to both countries at the same time. We actually split the data package and we divide up the review, and then we work on our decision-making together.

So that sort of approach is really the best for Canada, because growers will get access at the same time as their grower counterparts in the U.S. That's why we're really promoting—if I can use this word—the use of joint reviews.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I'm talking about existing product, not new product that has come on stream at the same time. It's already on the market in the States under a certain name, and we cannot bring it in here at a cheaper rate.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, the point is that we would have to have a submission with the appropriate data and/or the information—

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Are you thinking of doing that? Apparently we're not.

The Chair: Madame Gélinas, if you would like to enter the....

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I may just make something clear here, I'm not satisfied with the PMRA's responses.

I have some examples where they will say they agree with our recommendation, but in the details we can see some contradictions or it's vague.

For us, the best way to follow up on progress is to have a clear commitment in a departmental or agency response, and so far, we haven't received that.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you.

The Chair: If I may follow up, there are just a few moments left on Mr. Ritz's time.

I think the database was referred to. It was in 1994, I guess, that the government made a commitment that we would have a database on pesticide use. After ten years, why are we still not looking at having formulated a database? There has to be an answer to that. If there isn't, we're in trouble.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, there is an answer.

For some years now, we've been working very closely with all of the affected stakeholders on the creation of a sales database. The key issue for us was that we didn't have the power to do this under the current legislation. Under the new Pest Control Products Act, which has recently been given royal assent and will be proclaimed in the spring, there is the power to develop a regulation to collect sales data.

So that's really the key reason why we don't have it now, but we're certainly working on it.

The Chair: Who has been at fault here? Have we as a government been at fault and not given you the authority, the regulations, to do that? What has happened? In 1999 and 2002 we had reporting from the commissioner on this issue. Maybe I missed it, but this is the first time I've heard that. Why has it taken all these years for that to be brought to the table? And I realize you weren't the one responding.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, I can't answer that part of the question, but certainly the reality is that we need the power that is now in existence under the new legislation.

º (1635)

The Chair: Just further to that, given that we now have the authority for you to do that, how soon can we expect a database?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The expectation is that the new act will be proclaimed in the spring of this year. We're actively working on the regulation. We expect it to go to the Canada Gazette, Part I, hopefully in December, and then to the Canada Gazette, Part II after that. So we would fully expect the regulation of the sales database to be ready in line with the proclamation of the new act.

The Chair: Madam Gélinas.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Thank you.

I just wanted to make reference to one thing we say in the report. When we look at where they are in terms of development of the database, we are still concerned about the amount of work that remains to be done after the new PCPA has been put in place. So there is a lot to be done still.

I also want to draw the committee's attention to another issue, and this is a good illustration of that. One of the things we found when we did this audit is problems in certain areas. And I should say the problems and the audit extend well beyond PMRA. There are a number of weaknesses we have to say about Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other parties as well. But quite often those weaknesses actually have impacts in other places. So one of the concerns with the absence of the pesticides database is that the evaluators at PMRA have to construct their own data about usage each time they evaluate a new pesticide. Fixing problems in one area will also help fix problems in others.

The Chair: Madam Ur.

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

I find it very interesting this afternoon. Ms. Sexsmith, you keep coming back to the point that the only reason things aren't getting done is because you don't get sufficient data on application, and I heard that every time along the way. I thought maybe that's why the ombudsperson and the adviser we asked for, and we only got the one...they were supposed to help.... I remember Ms. Franklin saying, well, that person would ensure that once those applications came forth...that delay would be resolved by that person looking at all the data and it would flow through the system. And you used that constantly this afternoon. Because we don't get sufficient or full data, this is one of our real problems here. I think that's really an excuse I've heard all too often from the PMRA.

That being said, I would like to know.... Mr. Maxwell has just said there are weaknesses in Ag Canada. I believe the PMRA is under the purview of the health ministry....

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We report directly to the Deputy Minister of Health.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So how important is the PMRA within the health department? How closely do you work?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: How important is what?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think you represent PMRA.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How much credence is given from the health department working with PMRA? Do you have a good working relationship? Is there a significant exchange of ideas between the health department and your agency? Some people are reflecting the fact that...well, it's Agriculture Canada, as Mr. Maxwell has just said, but you fall under the health department. I think your first answer would be to the health department.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, if I understand your question correctly, and it seems to have a number of pieces...one question seems to be, do we report through the Deputy Minister of Health to the Minister of Health, and the answer absolutely is yes.

The other question is, how important is PMRA in the Department of Health...?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you have sufficient people within the Department of Health? Not the PMRA, because you have a lot of people there, but working within the system.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Since we're a part of Health Canada, we're very integrated into the department, I guess one could say.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, that's fine.

Let's move on to the climate zones. You probably know what I'm talking about, how we have the 5A's and the 5B's and all of that. I understand that PMRA has 18 different climate zones for Canada and the United States. Do the USDA and OECD recognize and use the same climate zones that PMRA has identified?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The climate zones that are currently in use under the NAFTA technical working group on pesticides are in fact zones that have been accepted by all three countries, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The OECD doesn't actually have zones because it's a bunch of member countries.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Another question that I have--and several of my colleagues have brought it forth--is with registration and working with the United States. We've heard this every time the agency has come here that they're working closely with the United States. Has the PMRA fully cooperated with U.S. pesticide registration officials and fully implemented the U.S. IR-4 minor-use registration models so that Canadian horticulture may be on the same level of playing field as their American counterparts? How closely has that come along?

º (1640)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Being on the registration side--which would be more like the U.S. Office of Pesticide Programs rather than the U.S. IR-4 program--I can comment on our part because Agriculture Canada is really more like the IR-4 part, the part that would generate the data, put the submission together, and then submit it to the U.S. And in this case they would submit it to Canada.

We're working very closely with Agriculture Canada on the set-up of the new approach for developing data for minor uses. We have a working group with Agriculture Canada and meet regularly to discuss processes and issues and how we're going to do this.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Can you name at this time a new product that's been developed in the last year or two?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Developed or registered?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Registered.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Registered, so a new drug review?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: One new product that comes to your mind--

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Sure.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: --that the PMRA has come up with.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We don't come up with products. The companies have to--

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I realize that.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: --submit it to us. But one recent one that is fairly interesting is acetamiprid, which was registered a little less than a year ago. It was a joint review product that had both grains and oilseed uses as well as horticultural uses. I think we have more than a hundred uses between those, the U.S. and Canadian registrations.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How long did that take to have happen?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That was a joint review; it was about 18 months.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are you happy with that?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I think it was one active ingredient and four or five introduced products. It was a very big submission, with lots of data, and we worked very closely with the U.S. I think we were quite satisfied with the results, and I hope the grower and the user communities are as well.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Have you any response to that, Mr. Maxwell?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: In terms of your questions about the relationship between PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, there are really three concerns we highlighted in our report, and this was all about the pace at which the minor-use program is being put in place.

We were concerned about the slow pace with which Agriculture and Agri-food Canada is putting together the program, the structure they will need to implement the new resources the minister had announced a year ago. We were concerned that the memoranda of understanding weren't sufficiently advanced. We also raised concerns about the need for the two organizations to make a final decision about issues such as the geographical area for similar cropping that can be accepted, concerns about how quickly that's moving.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you feel if we would have had the two positions filled, rather than just an adviser position and the ombudsman, we would probably be a little bit better off within the system? Do you have any ideas on that?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: It really wasn't something we looked at in any great detail. We do note that the adviser had been appointed and was in place, but we haven't much more to say about that.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Maybe you can't do this today, but perhaps you could pass this information to the committee when you have it at your fingertips. Could you provide this committee an explanation or a breakdown on the money that companies pay to process their applications? Where does that money go? What is that money used for? Can you answer that today?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I can answer.

From cost recovery we get about $8 million on an annual basis. That goes into the whole program, so it supports everything in the program. We can certainly provide you with a detailed breakdown. For a new food use pesticide it's about $200,000 for an application fee. We can certainly provide you with the form with all of the breakdown of details of money needed.

The Chair: We'll move on to another questioner.

Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There seems to be some concern about what your mandate actually is or isn't. On one hand you're saying the companies all have to acquiesce to you, the PMRA, and you have the final say on what gets out there into the marketplace and what doesn't. Yet on the other hand you can't formulate a database because you don't have the authority to do it. It seems to me there's something missing in that, that you're the all-powerful and almighty over here, but then you don't have any power when you open the door. I'm not sure how you can explain that.

º (1645)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I have a couple of comments.

Under the current Pest Control Products Act and the new one, our mandate is clear: it's protection of health in the environment. The onus is on the registrant, the companies, to provide us the data we need in order to make that decision of whether or not these products are acceptable for use in Canada.

I think the second question relates to the sales database. Under our current act we don't have the power to collect that information. We will under the new act. But when we are looking at new products, we will talk to grower groups or provinces to get the kind of information we need on, for example, percentage--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I have a point to make on that. What type of information would be lacking? Give me an example, a for instance.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, a for instance is if we're reviewing a pesticide and it would be really important to know whether or not it's going to be used on all of the crop, like all of the canola in Canada, or just part of the canola crop in Canada, because that really relates to the overall risks. If we don't have that information, we would go to our provincial counterparts and directly to the grower groups to get that kind of information. Other than that, we would assume the conservative, which would be we would assume that product was going to be used on all of the canola in Canada, so we would take 100%.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: That would never happen. There isn't a product I can think of that's used on all of the crops across the country. The regions are diverse, whether it's environmental, the land, or whatever.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: But that's the point. So we would make that conservative assumption, but also we would go to our provincial counterparts or the grower groups to be able to refine that if we needed to.

On the sales database issue, it's just an issue of we don't have the power under our current act. We will. We're in the process of developing a regulation, and we will start collecting on a mandatory basis--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So the power you're looking for will force them to give you a little bit more information than they're giving you now?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. Under the approach of the sales data regulation it would mean that registrants would be required, on an annual basis, to give us active ingredient by kilogram per year of all the pesticides they've sold. So we would get that information in the future on a regular basis.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: But if it's a registered pesticide, it's not going to change year to year unless they put in for a whole new application.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It could change from year to year.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: The content, the percentage of--

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, not the pesticide, but the use.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Yes, because crops are going to change.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: All right.

The Chair: Mr. Speller, five minutes.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome both of the agencies here today.

Commissioner, I had the pleasure actually of reading through your report. It was good to see the work that your agency actually does. I know for government it can be a pain sometimes, but I think it's important, and certainly you play a very important role. I want to refer to certain parts of your report. I want to ask you, and then the PMRA, a couple questions.

Just to get it straight, in your report in point 1.12 you say: “New regulations under the Act and new funding will provide opportunities for the federal government to significantly improve how it manages pesticides.” Then you say “This chapter provides a snapshot of pesticide management...”. I ask this question because I spent a heck of a lot of time around the table with the PCP Act working with both government and opposition members and people from different groups, civil society, so to speak, who had interest in this act, and we worked very hard on it. I'm wondering, do you feel that once this act comes in the health and safety of Canadians will be better served?

Then I want to move on to say I know regulations take some time, but can't we speed up that process? There seemed to be a heck of a lot of agreement around the table in terms of the regulations.

So I'll ask you first, Commissioner.

º (1650)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, we haven't looked at the impact of the new act. We have tried to concentrate on some of the weaknesses that we can identify at the moment. There are certain areas per se where we know there will be a benefit. If we think about reporting on adverse effects, we don't have too much information in this area as we speak. The new act will provide some information from the registrants on that, and further down the road, probably on a voluntary basis, from doctors or other people in the country.

I cannot really go beyond that, unless my colleagues would like to highlight some of the benefits that could come out of the new act.

Mr. Bob Speller: I simply wanted to get a snapshot of your impression on that, because I really want to get more to the internal.... Maybe I'll come back to it, because you mentioned earlier there were internal management problems. Those are the sorts of things I'd rather hear, actually, because I think we had general agreement around the table with the PCP Act and it moved forward.

To the PMRA, when are the regulations coming, and are all sides being represented in those regulations? There were certain sides around the table, and I want to make sure that when the regulations come forward all the concerns that were around the table are taken into account.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: My first comment is on when. The development of the regulations has been divided into three phases, just to deal with the workload. The first phase deals with making the existing regulations work under the new act, as well as some key regulations that include WHMIS, adverse effects, the sales data, and reconsideration of the decisions. They're moving along. We expect them to be in the gazette part one shortly and then in gazette two after Christmas, in time for the proclamation of the act. They are a priority one, moving very fast.

We've consulted on all of the four new regulations, the pre-consultation, pre-gazette one, so I guess we would say that we certainly are asking everybody for their input, we've considered their input, and what will be going forward will be a result of that pre-consultation. Then there will be another consultation through the normal process of gazette one. My own view is that we're moving as fast as we can and as a priority situation.

Mr. Bob Speller: Perhaps I can ask, then, in terms of the management--because we only get quick questions here by the time it gets down to me. You say in paragraph 1.62: “The Agency has not met its targets for evaluating...pesticides consistently; in March 2003, about one quarter of the 129 outstanding submissions were overdue...”. Then you say in point 1.113: “We also found that external reports are much less informative than internal reports. External stakeholders do not have good information about how well the Agency is doing with its submissions.”

I remember specifically, in both this committee and in the PCP committee, transparency was primary. You didn't really address that, I don't think, that well. To the agency, where is the transparency that this committee asked for?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, I guess I'm not completely clear on what the previous question was. If it's transparency around how we budget, how we record the results of our reviews with regard to performance standards, all of that is on our website. I would presume that was the answer at the previous time it was asked.

But I will say that at the next economic management advisory committee meeting, which is scheduled for next month, but we don't have a date quite yet, what we will be doing at that point is providing total time to registration, screening statistics, as well as what we have been providing all along, which is the performance standard based on the review of a complete submission. So we will be adding to that aspect of transparency, if that was your question.

º (1655)

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Those would be new additions, and those are the sorts of things we wanted to see. That's the sort of thing we talked about in our audit report, increased performance information.

The other thing I'd highlight, which we think is quite important, is a similar kind of progress and performance reporting on the re-evaluations as well.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I guess we could go on at length about what ought to be in that report, but the other areas, obviously, of concern to this committee and others are with respect to minor use, pesticides in particular, and possibly also with respect to the temporary registrations that are made.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Perhaps I could make a comment. Under the new Pest Control Products Act there is a requirement to provide an annual report. That will also go to the transparency aspect.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I found your report to the House of Commons for 2003 very interesting, but it caused a little bit of anxiety, too, as I read some of the highlighted areas. West Nile virus is a real concern in this country and in the United States as well. I notice that there are a number of insecticides listed there, one called Malathion, which we've been using since 1953 and which the PMA recently studied and put under new restrictions. You have DEET, which can cause irritations in mild cases, or certainly neurotoxic effects. Oil of citronella may be carcinogenic.

Is the cure perhaps worse than the malady? Is there anything here that we can recommend to municipalities or conservation authorities or the average citizen, as to what they could or should be using? Can anyone on the panel answer that one?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I will start off.

Our role in West Nile virus, and there's a much larger role in other parts of Health Canada, has been in ensuring that the products that are registered are acceptable for use. We've been involved in providing that kind of information through the various committee structures across Canada.

It is really the provinces and the municipalities that finally make the decision to spray. We did re-evaluate Malathion and essentially found it to be acceptable for the West Nile virus. There are a number of other products, a number of microbial products, that are commonly used to kill, larvicides. So that has essentially been our role in that arena.

Mr. John Maloney: Those bacterial approaches are perhaps even better, but the cost is a problem. Is that because they're new products?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's hard for me to comment exactly on the cost. It may be because they're new products, it may be because they're a technology that's a little different. But that's really the registrant's responsibility, the cost side.

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Sexsmith, there was also reference made to cosmetic pesticides for lawns, golf courses, parks, etc., and that there were eight pesticides, some of them registered for about fifty years, that you were re-evaluating. For five out of the eight, when this report was done, re-evaluation wasn't completed. What is the status now? Are our citizens at risk by playing a game of golf or walking on their lawn?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The proposal is to finish those re-evaluations in this fiscal year, 2003-2004. We would have probably finished a number of them sooner but we had received more information, new information, and we had to look at that. We're in the process of completing those evaluations.

Mr. John Maloney: Could there possibly be bans on some of these products, and if so, how long would it take you to institute a ban?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's difficult for us to predict, having not finished our work. When we look at phase-outs, if there is a phase-out of a product it really directly relates to what issue we found with the product.

» (1700)

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

The Chair: Madam Gélinas.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, for us the importance of the West Nile virus example was really to highlight the importance of re-evaluation. If it hadn't been for this situation, Malathion, for example, wouldn't have gone through a speeded-up process for re-evaluation. Now we know that for a specific use, there is more stringent restriction on the pesticide.

It's the same thing with DEET. DEET is a pest repellent that every Canadian in this country uses, and it was suggested we use it to make sure we don't get bitten by mosquitoes. It has taken 12 years to re-evaluate that pesticide. When you think of the fact that there are only six old pesticides so far that have been re-evaluated, what about the 400 we still have to re-evaluate?

When the PMRA says the job will be finalized as expected by 2006, as the Commissioner of the Environment, I'm asking the question: show me how you're going to do that. Because there are some urgent issues here that need to be addressed. And if you look at the few that have been done over ten years, the question is very simple. How are they going to to do that? That's why we have used that example--to illustrate that it's urgent to speed up the process.

The Chair: I guess that's a reasonable request from the commissioner.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you have a response? Is it a matter of resources? Do you need more money? Do you need to hire more scientists?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Our plan to complete the re-evaluations by 2006-07 is essentially laid out in the document we published in 2001, and it builds to a very heavy degree on the results of the U.S. work. As I indicated earlier, out of the four programs, program one and program three are both programs that will use the U.S. results and make Canadian decisions.

That's how we intend to meet that 2006-07 deadline.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick has to leave, and he wants to ask a question or two.

Keep it brief, if you can.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify re-evaluating the 400 older pesticides, I'm glad to hear the PMRA is going to accept--I'm not trying to put words in your mouth--the results of the U.S. review of these older pesticides. I'm sure there are other countries involved in that, but we need to do it and do it quickly, so we're going to accept the U.S. and their science, which we should. Yet we aren't nearly as open to accepting their science on new products that they've studied and put through evaluations.

Here we are, the two great countries of the world, and the PMRA has every intention.... They always do such a great job, but we don't seem to be using these common resources at all.

I don't think that would conflict with what anyone wants from our PMRA, Mr. Chair.

Could you comment?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Just to be clear, and maybe I'm not supposed to say you're wrong, essentially what I want to say is under re-evaluation we will be using U.S. information, and when it comes to new products we also use U.S. information. We use it all the time. We do require, however, a submission for new products. And with the submission, if there's information there developed by another country, we will certainly use it. We use it all the time.

In fact, we have one whole program based just on the submission of another country's information.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just to go back again to these alarming older pesticides, when I read here in the commissioner's report that progress depends on the U.S. efforts and priorities, I just wonder whether the commissioner has any comment on that.

This is humungous, the fact that there are 400 pesticides there that are used in thousands of products. I'd like your comments and also the PMRA's. What if the U.S. doesn't go forward with this, what are we going to do? This could be and probably is a disaster in the making--2006, and now we hear 2007. I probably won't be here in 2008-09.

Mr. Chair, I just wonder if we could get comments on that. Thank you.

» (1705)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: You've raised a good question, and this is one of the things we're asking too. What if the U.S. EPA fails in delivering on time doing the re-evaluations? So we need something that we're very familiar with in this country, a plan B, so the PMRA will know what to do if the U.S. EPA cannot deliver. This is the kind of information we're looking for--what is the plan?

We know we're not using the same pesticides all the time, because we're not growing the same kinds of fruit and vegetables. What about our high-risk pesticides compared with those in the U.S.? Maybe they're the same--I don't know. I was not able to give you that information because the information was not available.

What is the priority list? How will it proceed with the game plan of the U.S. EPA? We need that information if you want to be able to report on progress, to see the progress in the PMRA's report on progress.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Ms. Sexsmith.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I have a couple of comments.

In the document that was published in 2001, which we in fact consulted on as well, it set out how we would go about re-evaluating the 405 active ingredients by 2006-07. It's just a fiscal year thing. Essentially, the priorities are built on and with the U.S. priorities. The high-risk issues were pesticides on food, issues of concern to Canadians, pesticides for which there were international issues flagged, and then areas where we clearly could see we could work very closely with the U.S. and get something done quickly.

The U.S. has a legal mandate to finish by 2006-07. They're pretty tied into it. But anything could happen. The world could change. It's changed before; it may change again. But we really feel we have a pretty good chance of doing this with them, provided we can use their material.

The Chair: Not to be overly critical, I think we've been rather short on specifics, but quite liberal with our generalities in terms of what we hope to do. I think early on, Ms. Sexsmith, you mentioned that we've made progress. That taken as a general statement, what criteria is it based on?

I guess the second part would be the term “reasonable time”. I think that term was used. Are we putting the same definition on “reasonable time” as our American counterparts, and what is reasonable time? These are general statements. We can go on in six months, a year, two years from now and refer to those statements, and basically you would never be out of sync, because you are making progress and you have done it in reasonable time, depending on whose standard you use.

These are the kinds of things that are frustrating this committee and our general community of people, not only farmers, but people. For instance, all of us are involved in using DEET.

Having stated that we're going to meet our target deadline of 2006-07 to have all the old pesticides reviewed, it's impossible, given our historic record.

How do you respond to us and give some confidence to this committee that we can expect some reasonable progress, at least based on our past history and what we could see in the next six months to a year? We would hope there would be a significant change so that we could measure against something that has happened in the past, which has not been very good.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll talk about old products first. We have proposed that we would complete 40% of the 405 by next spring. That's a piece of progress that's concrete. You will be able to measure us by that.

On the new products, the way I would measure progress might be a little different from the way you would measure progress. But before 1996 we didn't have a joint review program with the U.S., so we didn't have an opportunity to have the same product registered in the two countries at the same time. Now we have a joint review program that's multiple. It has many doors. It's for reduced-risk products, biopesticides, OP replacements, and even other things. And while it's not exactly a matter of routine yet with all the registrants, 50% of all our new pesticides are coming in through a joint review or a work-share approach with the U.S. To me, that's progress.

What we would like to see, our vision, is 100%. The industry tells us it will never be 100% because there will be some products, like for lemons in the U.S.... Well, we don't grow lemons. And there's probably something in Canada we hold dear, probably turnips, that may be different in the U.S.

So I would like to maintain that 50% figure of simultaneous access and see it improved. Maybe that's a way you can look at us. But the thing is, it's not just us. We have to have the submissions. One of the roles of the growers is they can work with the companies to make sure that's seen as an important issue for growers.

» (1710)

The Chair: Would that give the commissioner some degree of confidence moving forward?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It's all goodwill. We all have goodwill. What I'm looking for is...like the 40% of achievement by next spring. I would like to see the numbers so that we will be able to see how progress is made on a regular basis. It is that simple for us.

The Chair: Ms. Ur, I think you wanted to get in.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You keep saying you need the submissions in order to make progress, Ms. Sexsmith. I agree, so really the PMRA cannot do anything if you don't have the submissions. It's out of your hands. Is that what you're indicating here, then?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: When I say that we review submissions, it's critical to our work. We have to receive them. The point I am trying to make on the joint reviews is that it's really important to receive a submission jointly, at the same time as the U.S., so we can work together with the U.S. and make simultaneous decisions so that there's equal access to growers on both sides of the border.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's nothing. You can encourage, then. It comes from the companies making the application.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, yes, in a sense we can't exactly tell them to do it, but we have been working with them for many years now to encourage that, and we do it.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You said you had this joint review with the United States. How many products have come forward since that process has come into being?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We've registered 49 active ingredients in end-use products, and about 20 of those are reduced-risk products.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: And that's in seven years?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you feel that's good progress?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's not bad.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: According to what? It's easy to have targets if you don't have a line in the sand on which to make that judgment.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: What that means is 50% of our new, active ingredients are coming in through the joint review process.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That seems like a lot of years for six products. I don't know whether the commissioner--

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's not six; it's 49, I said.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: And 1996 and seven is...2003, I think.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, but that's about average. If we're just talking about active ingredients, we see somewhere between six and twelve active ingredients on an annual basis, and then we'd have end-use products that would go with that and a number of uses.

So we would see somewhere between 45 and 65 new actives and new uses on an annual basis, but for agriculture there would be perhaps six or seven that would be new actives.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You indicated in part of your presentation here that you were dividing the workload into three phases. Are you saying there aren't sufficient people within the PMRA to do this, or why is it in three phases?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I believe that related to the development of the regulations under the new act. And yes, it really related to what needed to be done first and to managing how you get all of that work done.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: In the commissioner's report on page 34 it says, “With the new legislation, the Agency has received more funding and the future appears more secure”, which is a positive element. It goes on to say, “The additional funding is supposed to rise from $7.8 million is 2002-2003, to a maximum of $19.6 million...”. That is 61%.

What are we going to see from those dollars, with that kind of funding? Do you have a target? Do you have a framework, an openness, a transparency so that we can have a target that we can work towards to see that you are meeting your goals? You can say you've met your goals if you've only done one thing when you don't have a target to say you're going to have ten.

» (1715)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The balance of those resources are for the activities related to the implementation of the new act. About $4 million of those new resources relate to the evaluation and review of reduced-risk products and minor uses.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: With all due respect, I really want to work with you, but I get it from my farming community and they're begging that this agency be a tool for them. They need this tool in their toolbox to survive and to be on a level playing field with the United States. It appears that after so many years of this being in existence, there seems to be a real void here for our agricultural sector.

Do you think there is hope that PMRA can be sustained in the present agency? Or is there a time to review the PMRA and say we need to look at this and to put into this a new structure and to see where we can improve?

The agency has been together for sufficient time that I think there should be sufficient data there to review to ensure that the sufficient dollars are going in. And you have a lot of people working in the agency. We need to make sure that we're spending our money wisely so that the producers back home will say “Great, we've had excellent work done by PMRA”.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, my own view is, and you did ask me, that the agency is well structured and has a solid commitment to evaluating products as expeditiously as possible while respecting our mandate to protect health and the environment. We have received new resources both for the implementation of the new act and for the review of minor use and reduced risk, and we're working closely with agriculture to ensure that we have a program that supports growers and therefore the registration of minor uses in the future.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: This may not be in your hands, but I see you are the acting executive director. Is that position going to be filled, or are you going to stay on? Do you know when that's going to happen?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The position will be filled. I don't know when it's going to happen.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: There's an open process for competition for the position, or is it all from within?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, it would be from within government.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is there any way of indicating that people who are in PMRA, and there are other agencies that deal with PMRA...if people who work within PMRA and if family members who also work in other agencies...if there is a continuity there, if that's taken into consideration when hiring is taking place?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: If I understand....

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The hiring procedure is very open. Say in the justice department, if there's someone there you have to go to.... Justice just jumped to my mind. If there's a person you deal with in the capacity of PMRA, that's separate from anyone who is hired within the agency?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'm still not sure what you're asking me, except I think what you're asking me is when hiring goes on in government, do they make sure there isn't nepotism?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There are all sorts of structures and things in place to ensure that.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Maxwell has a response.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: On the previous point about resources and so on, I just want to bring the committee's attention to the fact that we were quite concerned that there isn't a basic costing system in place in PMRA. We would have expected costing on individual projects and against individual registrations.

A broader point I want to make is that in terms of progress and measuring progress, I think the discussion today underlines the fact that PMRA needs to define its expectations. It needs to define its targets. Several of those have been discussed in terms of re-evaluation and such, but a very valuable exercise would be for PMRA to do that across the board.

And lastly, I would just note again something the commissioner said earlier. We think one of the ways we can get concrete progress would be to have the agency prepare an action plan on each of the concerns that we raised in the report, and that would give this committee a basis on which to judge progress.

The Chair: Something else?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I've worked hard on this PMRA because I'm really sincerely hoping we can be positive.... I put this together so I wouldn't leave anything out.

Since the standing committee tabled its report on the registration of pesticides and the competitiveness of farmers in May 2002, the PMRA has been invited to appear every six months to report on its activities. This monitoring by the standing committee will likely continue for a considerable length of time. I would like to take this opportunity today then to ask the commissioner whether she would be willing to maintain her examination of PMRA on this ongoing issue. If so, the committee would ask the PMRA to make available a progress report on its activities prior to its appearance before the committee every six months. The progress report would highlight various indicators such as, but not limited to--and I have five points: the number of new pesticides approved; the number of old pesticides re-evaluated; the number of minor-use pesticides approved; the number of temporary and emergency registrations; and other information pertaining to the agency's operation, including cost-recovery, staff requirements, and so on.

Formulating these indicators into a comprehensive progressive report could help highlight areas and trends in the PMRA's work and identify aspects requiring improvement. This effort may in turn help Canadian farmers have access to pesticides that will keep them as competitive as their U.S. counterparts.

So, Mr. Chair, if the committee agrees, I would ask that PMRA provide such a report every six months for review, in consultation with the commissioner. I don't know how my colleagues feel. I think this would be a good working document to start for this committee because I think we share many of the same concerns around the table.

» (1720)

The Chair: Is there a consensus on support? I'm not seeking a vote here.

You may not have a choice in the matter. I mean, the committee is a creation unto itself and it can ask of you what it wishes to ask. You may want to mull that over, but we will at the appropriate time, when we have sufficient numbers, make the decision. You will hear from us.

Ms. Sexsmith, maybe you want to answer immediately, unequivocally, yes.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I would actually like to answer it.

Certainly, on behalf of PMRA, we would be pleased to come here every six months to provide you with a report on the number of new products, the number of old products registered, and on minor uses, temporaries, and emergencies. We would be pleased to do that.

The Chair: So it's unequivocally yes.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

In addition to that, as was mentioned before, there will be an annual report going to Parliament every year related to the new Pest Control Products Act.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You will hear from us again and we will hear from your again. Thank you for appearing today and for being so forthright. This is a serious issue and we take our job very seriously and we want to have resolution to some of these ongoing concerns that have been going on far too long. Thank you again, and we will see you next time.

The meeting stands adjourned.