ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 1, 1999

• 0808

[Translation]

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will study the management and use of pesticides in Canada,

[English]

including an evaluation of the performance of the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, in preventing pollution and protecting human health and the environment.

There are several issues this committee would like to explore. Amongst them is the issue of mixed mandates given to agencies, and when mixed mandates are given to government agencies, whether, in the end, the public interest is properly served.

• 0810

The PMRA is not the only organization that is given mixed mandates. There are several others, as you well know. It is quite possible, then, that the findings of this committee could have application to the general principle of mixed mandates and how well they serve Canadians at large.

This committee doesn't have the habit of launching initiatives in response to the media, but I have to draw your attention to this sheer coincidence. Yesterday, May 31, in the Ottawa Citizen, under the signature of Andrew Duffy, there appeared an article that certainly is timely and helpful.

In that article, Mr. Emmett, the environment commissioner, is quoted frequently. I will read some of the quotations from his latest report.

For instance, the article says:

“The need to re-evaluate pesticides has been formally recognized by the federal government for over 13 years, and we expected that it would have developed a program to do so,” Mr. Emmett said. “We found Canada's track record to be one of inaction and unfulfilled commitments.”

Actually, when we decided to go into this subject matter in late April, early May, we were certainly not aware of that aspect.

The article continues:

[The health minister] conceded...that the pesticide regulatory agency has suffered “growing pains” in the four years it has been under his department's control.

Then it says:

“I think Mr. Emmett's criticism is a fair one: that we don't have a comprehensive, co-ordinated strategy on pesticides,” Mr. Rock told reporters.

The article goes on:

Warned Mr. Emmett: “The absence of an effective re-evaluation program means there is no assurance that Canadians are not being exposed to unacceptable risk.”

That is pretty strong language.

Then, of course, we hear the corporate voice:

In a recent letter to Mr. Rock, industry leaders complained the agency is having “a profound effect” on Canadian competitiveness.

They want the agency to accept re-evaluations done by other countries like the U.S. while concentrating on making its operations more cost-effective.

Then we have a voice from the NGOs, in this case from Ms. Julia Langer in Toronto:

Environmentalists like Ms. Langer...contend “quicker, cheaper, faster pesticide registration is antithetical to solving the real problems with pesticides in this country.”

Ms. Langer contends the act is deeply flawed. She counts among its problems the fact:

Pesticides are assessed based on the average adult male's exposure and sensitivity to a product, a system that overlooks the vulnerability of children and women, and does not take into account a person's total exposure.

• 0815

Finally, from that article by Mr. Duffy, we learn the following:

Changes have been promised for a decade and Mr. Rock is now reportedly examining the first major amendments to the Pest Control Products Act since 1969.

For those who haven't seen this article, I would recommend it, because somehow it fits as an interesting launching pad for this meeting today, and for subsequent meetings.

The witnesses this morning, ladies and gentlemen, are Dr. Claire Franklin, executive director of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency; Charalyn Kriz, director of the environmental assessment division; and Dr. John Smith, senior project manager.

I see two more faces at the table, Dr. Franklin. Perhaps you can introduce them, after which the floor is yours for a short presentation so as to allow the members to ask questions.

Of course, on behalf of my colleagues, I welcome you all to this meeting.

Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

I will take the opportunity to introduce Rod Raphael and Steven Clarkson. They're both with the health protection branch. The clerk had asked that in order to have a fuller discussion on the role of Health Canada, there be members from PMRA as well as from other areas within the department.

The Chairman: Can we ask you to stay within 10 minutes with your statement?

Dr. Claire Franklin: All right. We'll try, but we had understood we had a little longer than that.

The Chairman: Are you the only speaker for the whole group?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I am.

The Chairman: Then by all means proceed.

Dr. Claire Franklin: All right.

I understand you are launching into a general review of pest management. Being the leadoff speaker, I will provide some information and background that will set the stage. I understand you have other representatives from other departments who will be appearing over the next week or so.

Pesticides play a crucial role in modern society. They give farmers a tool to protect crops from pests and diseases. They ensure that the food we eat is not spoiled by insects and microbes, and they protect our forests from devastating losses to pests. They also allow us to disinfect our swimming pools and keep bugs away from us when we're outside. Many industrial processes also rely on the availability of safe and effective pesticides.

The biological effects make them valuable to society, but these effects can also pose risks to both human and environmental health. Therefore, pesticides are closely regulated under the Pest Control Products Act. They are extensively tested and assessed before being approved for use, and conditions of use are imposed for each product.

Until the creation of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the administration of the Pest Control Products Act rested with the Minister of Agriculture. Other federal departments, including Health Canada, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, acted as advisers. Limits for pesticide residues on food were established by Health Canada under the Food and Drugs Act.

In 1990 a multi-stakeholder committee, called the Pesticide Registration Review, reviewed the federal pesticide registration system and recommended significant changes to the system as it existed then.

In 1995 the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, was formed in response to a key recommendation in that multi-stakeholder review. The recommendation was to consolidate the expertise for pesticide registration in a single agency under the Minister of Health.

I would point out that we are, in some respects, significantly different from the CFIA. We are an agency within the department. I report to the Deputy Minister of Health and through the DM to the Minister of Health.

The responsibilities for PMRA are achieved through the Pest Control Products Act, which remains the most important underlying legislative basis and provides the statutory authority to prevent controlled products from entering or remaining in the market if they're unacceptable—that is, if the risk is unacceptable, or the merit or value is unacceptable.

We're responsible for administering the act, including enforcement and compliance. We also have authority under the Food and Drugs Act to establish and promulgate limits for pesticide residues in food.

• 0820

We exercise our responsibility within a larger sphere of activity within government that impacts on the use of pesticides. Colleagues from other departments will be here at future meetings to discuss their activities as they relate to aspects other than registration of pest control products.

A variety of departments, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada and the CFIA have research functions in such areas as sustainable pest management strategies, toxic substances, and food safety.

Environment Canada, Health Canada, and CFIA also have regulatory functions related to toxic substances and food safety.

We have coordination mechanisms with these other departments on pesticides as well as on broader issues related to toxic management. There are MOUs in place and there are others under development.

There is also provincial and territorial activity in pesticides. There are long-standing pieces of legislation within the provinces, and they work in concert with the federal government for the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides.

In reforming the pest regulatory system in 1995, in addition to forming PMRA the government embarked on an ambitious reform of the regulatory system based on the recommendations of the review committee. They specifically directed PMRA to implement a number of key initiatives.

The challenge to the agency, as the minister commented, is that the reform of an established system requires vision and direction in order to start the changes, and also patience and persistence to see them through.

The formation of the agency posed the challenge of integrating diverse groups from three departments into one agency. At the same time, we had to implement a wide range of new initiatives to address the issues of considerable scope. Not all of these initiatives could be started at once.

To meet the challenge, the agency developed a strategic plan that sets out the direction for PMRA to fulfil the government's commitments. We are well underway to accomplishing the objectives set out in the plan.

The recommendations from the committee as well as the government's response are delineated in the strategic plan. We've identified where we are with each of the recommendations the government agreed to pursue.

A key initiatives list has been handed out to you. I'm going to touch on only some of these.

I would just comment that in the four years since the formation of the agency, we have made significant progress. Again, you can see that delineated in the strategic plan.

With regard to risk management, the agency has made and continues to make registration decisions based on sound principles of risk management. All pesticides undergo an extensive pre-market assessment before they are allowed to be sold and used in Canada. All registration decisions are preceded by risk and value assessments, and followed up through compliance programs.

We have implemented the federal toxic substances management policy. It applies to new and existing pesticides as well as formulants and by-products contained in pesticide products.

We have significantly improved the internal assessment decision-making process for new pesticides since formation of the agency. We're now bringing existing pesticides into a new re-evaluation program that systematically and comprehensively reassesses the safety and value of older products.

The old approach to re-evaluation had severe limitations. It was very time-consuming and not able to respond well to the need of bringing all pesticides up to modern standards.

We have designed a new approach to re-evaluation. This has been presented already to our Pest Management Advisory Council, to the Economic Management Advisory Committee, and to other government departments on the program design and content. Comments received to date will be incorporated, and the document will be published as a regulatory proposal, with additional time for further comment.

As recommended in the 1990 stakeholder review and accepted by cabinet, the new re-evaluation program will be based on reviews done by the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. We will utilize other reviews from other countries if we believe they're up to the standards we expect within Canada.

Our reassessments will incorporate considerations of the U.S., as outlined in their Food Quality Protection Act, and will address aggregate risk from all exposure; cumulative risk for pesticides with similar mode of action; and an increased safety factor for infants and children.

We expect that by 2006-07, all pesticides that were registered prior to 1995 will have been re-evaluated. This timeframe matches that of the U.S. EPA.

• 0825

With regard to openness and transparency, which we were also asked to improve over the previous system, we've created a number of advisory bodies, including the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides, the Pest Management Advisory Council, which advises the minister on broad aspects of pest regulation, and the Economic Management Advisory Committee. As well, we have linkages with other government departments through assigned designated assistant deputy ministers.

We've established a consultation process for guideline changes, and through this consultation process other government departments and the public have an opportunity to comment.

We now publish regulatory notes and propose regulatory decision documents to show on what basis the agency has made proposed registration decisions on new pesticides and significant changes to registered pesticides. Other government departments are informed of the agency's decision through the regular mail-out of information packages.

With regard to a risk reduction policy, the agency has not been idle in that area either. We have approached this by actually doing some things, and then will take what we've learned from that to write a more comprehensive policy.

With a practical, hands-on approach, we've initiated several cooperative projects that make integrated pest management the central point in a user's decision—if, when, and how to use pesticides, or if there are alternatives.

We've initiated a joint review program with the U.S. EPA that accelerates the review of new pesticides that promise a risk reduction as compared with available pesticides.

We've also focused on having a joint review program on bio-pesticides to increase the utilization of microbials and pheromone products that provide alternatives to traditional chemicals.

Jointly with the provinces we've improved the training and education required of pesticide applicators, and we're now working to incorporate these practical experiences into a policy for the agency.

It should be noted that the agency has developed a sustainable development strategy with concrete time targets and timelines. Our sustainable development strategy is part of the Health Canada strategy.

With regard to the national pesticide sales database, surveys have been done in the past, the provinces collect some data, and we have aggregate sales data as well. We feel that this information, although available, can be improved. A consistent and systematic collection of pesticide sales data on a national scale would be important. We've established a working group with representatives of industry, NGOs, provinces and other departments to develop this national sales database.

I'm pleased to say that in the next couple of weeks we'll have the results of the pilot project that has been ongoing for a period of time. The database will be up and running by the end of 2000, and we expect 2001 to be the first year of comprehensive collection of national sales data.

I would summarize by saying that the agency has a strong mandate and expertise to protect human health and the environment. We're well underway to fulfilling the government's commitment to reform of the pesticide regulatory system. We believe we've made strides in addressing all of the key initiatives we were asked to work toward.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Franklin. You delivered quite a lot in only 14 minutes.

Do your colleagues wish to add any comments?

Dr. Claire Franklin: In the interest of preserving time for questions, we thought we would respond as questions came up, if that is satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. There is no member from the official opposition in the room. Madam Girard-Bujold, please, do be the first to ask questions.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Dr. Franklin, the summary of your presentation reads as follows:

PMRA has strong mandate and expertise to protect human health and the environment.

PMRA is well on the way to fulfil the government's commitments for a reform of the pesticide regulatory system.

To fulfil these commitments, you must certainly depend on a number of partners. Who are they? How do these partners participate in sustainable pest management and how are responsibilities divided between federal and provincial governments?

• 0830

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: Thank you very much.

Perhaps I should have spent a little longer indicating that when the agency was formed, all of the people who were in the departments that had previously been involved in regulating pesticides were transferred to the agency. That meant the people in Environment Canada who were involved in the regulation of pesticides came to the agency, as did those from Agriculture Canada, and from Health Canada, and from lab services. So that expertise is within the agency.

What was left in the sectoral departments was the research activities. For this reason we have established MOUs with other departments so that we have a mechanism for ensuring there's a very clear delineation. We're trying to avoid any overlap, and we're trying to be able to utilize the information that may be generated by other departments for us to make our regulatory decisions.

The other departments are Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, NRCan, primarily the forestry aspect of that department, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Have I missed anyone?

Those departments have retained some activity, and I believe you will hear from them directly over the next period of time on their specific activities.

You can be well aware that on the utilization of pesticides, registration is only one part. For information on how it can be used with regard to pest management, Agriculture Canada has an involvement in working with growers in that aspect. The registration responsibilities, though, are all strictly within the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

With regard to the provinces, they all have legislation, and they have had it for many, many years. It varies from province to province as to whether the regulatory activity is within the Department of the Environment or the Ministry of the Environment. In some provinces, there's a dual responsibility, with the Ministry of Agriculture involved as well.

We have a very good working relationship with the provinces. They have their responsibilities, which have been delineated for a great period of time. Through the federal-provincial-territorial committee we meet on an annual basis and have ongoing involvement with the provinces.

Internationally, we have worked very aggressively in two main fora. One is within NAFTA. As I mentioned, we've established with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a capacity to do joint reviews on submissions. We also work very actively through the OECD, and are working to try to ensure that the standards and the levels of data generated meet internationally acceptable standards.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Dr. Franklin.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan and Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Looking at your presentation, and at the other documents presented to us, I see basically four divisions under the agency—product sustainability and coordination; environmental assessment; health evaluation; and alternative strategies, regulatory.

Are those basically the four?

Dr. Claire Franklin: We have another division, involved with lab services and compliance. We have other divisions, but those are the primary divisions that are involved directly in registration decisions.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: My question is, we don't have any of the financial obligations in terms of revenues or expenditures from your agency. Is it possible to acquire those to find out the breakdown of what the divisions receive so that we can ascertain the priorities the agency has through certain divisional activities?

• 0835

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, certainly we can. We have put together the way in which the finances are delineated. Because each of the divisions you've mentioned has a component part within the registration decision, we have identified what the resources are that are directed towards review of new submissions, evaluation of registered products, alternative strategies, and the compliance areas. So the resources are aggregated on that basis to clearly be able to show what resources are put towards each of those areas.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Is there a user fee based on this service, in terms of registering?

As well, how do we acquire the knowledge of registered pesticides? Is there such a thing as unregistered pesticides in this country? Is there some means of investigating these, or is there evidence of this in that aspect?

To speak on an international basis, as the report stated, out of the OECD countries, I think Canada and the Republic of Slovakia were the only ones that didn't have a database, as highlighted to us. Is this pilot project since 1995 a regional pilot project or is it a national pilot project? Is it one farm out there that you're ascertaining it for, or finding out how much pesticide is being used in one acre?

We don't know, in the end, what kind of pilot project it is. Could you expound on that?

Dr. Claire Franklin: With regard to the questions on fees, as part of government policy we are involved with cost recovery. We have two types of fees from which we obtain resources. One is an application fee. When a registrant wishes to have his product reviewed and a determination made as to whether it can be registered, there is a fee for that. There's also an ongoing maintenance fee for each product that is registered.

So there are those two avenues for generating revenue. We generate approximately 25% to 30% of our total budget through cost recovery.

With regard to registered and unregistered pesticides, it is illegal to sell or utilize an unregistered pesticide. For that reason, we do have a compliance activity to be able to identify if there are any illegal uses of products. We have inspectors throughout the country and we have regional offices throughout the country. That activity is there to assist us in determining if there are illegal uses.

On the sales data, it is correct, as I said in my comments, that there is not a detailed, comprehensive program. We have been in the process of working towards establishing that. We do have information that has been collected from time to time through surveys, and that gives an indication of the amount of product utilized. The provinces variably collect information on the sales of pesticides, but with the information we will be gathering, we believe we will have the same type of information.

I should point out that not all countries have been collecting this type of information for a long period of time. It is correct to say that we're not amongst the leaders in having this comprehensive data, but I don't believe we're all that far behind other countries. So we're looking forward to getting this information as quickly as we can.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: On the issue of harmonization, I believe there was an example given to us of agencies and departments that were squabbling, I guess, over jurisdictions of certain products. I believe it was irrigation canals that were being used in some of the prairie provinces. Some of the products that were ending up in the canals were either under DFO regulation or Agriculture Canada or your agency, provincial-federal, etc.

Could you clarify that, and what some of the problems are? There must be some hardships you're facing in coordinating all of this.

As well, in terms of compliance with regard to non-registered, is there a case list of how many fines there have been, or cases you have had of you slapping the wrists of people for their doing unregistered pesticides in this country? Is there a list of stuff you've enforced?

• 0840

Dr. Claire Franklin: A list of slapped wrists?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

Dr. Claire Franklin: With response to your first comment on the harmonization issue, the product you've raised is acrolein. This product is a herbicide that's registered for use in irrigation canals.

The issue that has been challenging, it's fair to say, is that if a product is applied or gets into a fish habitat, then the Fisheries Act does have jurisdiction for protection of fish habitat.

The issue that arose on this one—and it has been challenging, there's no question—is whether or not an irrigation canal is deemed to be a fish habitat or whether it's not. It tends to be a province-by-province decision as to whether they consider an irrigation canal to be a fish habitat.

So it's been challenging to try to resolve that. I guess our view is that we're certainly not trying to usurp the authority of the Fisheries Act, but if a province wishes to use the product, and they don't consider it to be a fish habitat, that would be a legal usage of the product.

On the compliance, we do have information, which I believe is publicly available, for cases that are taken to court and that there is a final decision on. If there is information that there's an investigation and it's deemed by the justice department that we don't have enough information, or the situation is not able to be taken to court, I don't believe that information is publicly available. But I can certainly check into that and make sure that whatever we can provide, we do.

I should point out there's a new approach that I believe will allow us to do a little more on the wrist-slapping side—namely, the administrative monitories penalty that's coming forward. I think that will also be a very useful mechanism for us to take folks to task if they're not applying products appropriately, or if they're using illegal products.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte; perhaps on the second round.

The order for questions will be Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Gilmour, Monsieur Charbonneau, Mr. Pratt, Madam Torsney, and the chair.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just looking at your deck, at the page entitled “PMRA Responsibilities”, and the bullet that says you work to establish “limits for pesticide residues on food under the Food and Drugs Act”.

I'm just wondering how these limits are established.

Dr. Claire Franklin: The maximum residue limits are established based on a very extensive amount of scientific information that we have looked at, toxicological end points. We look at acute information, short-term data, longer-term studies, reproductive studies, teratology studies, neurotox studies—the full range of toxicology studies available to us.

We also have information on what the exposure would be, either the residue that would be left on a product if it's used according to label directions or what the exposure would be to a range of the population, including children, workers, and bystanders.

So all that information is taken into consideration when we make the decision.

I also would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the comment that says we do this only on the basis of an adult male is incorrect. We have detailed information, and we segregate. The group that's of great interest to people is the area of children. We actually break this down, because children, as they go from infancy to older children, do have differences in eating habits and the type and the amount of food. All of that information is taken into consideration when a maximum residue level is established.

So we have a very significant amount of information and take very seriously any decision that would allow a residue to remain on a food that's consumed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is it possible to submit some of those documents for committee so that we can see what the breakdowns might be?

• 0845

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, certainly we can provide that information.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

What happens when residues exceed the limit?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency does sample food and look to see whether the maximum residue limits are exceeded. They've done this for many years. It's not something that's just recently been done.

I believe they will be here. I can comment in general, but I'm sure they would be pleased to provide to you more detailed information on how they determine how to do their sampling, and what they do.

Certainly if the food has exceeded the tolerance, depending on the severity or the level—it may have exceeded by just a small amount—there would be decisions taken as to what would be done with that produce.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And what happens when it's country food in the Arctic?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The country food in the Arctic would certainly not be looked at on a specific inspection basis, but if there is indication that there are levels of residue that would cause any significant problem, then I do believe there would be steps taken to determine what needs to be done with that food supply.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The steps being...?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Perhaps Mr. Raphael can give you more detailed comments on that.

Mr. Roderick A. Raphael (Acting Director General, Environment Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Dr. Franklin.

With respect to country foods, Health Canada has a role, a very important role, to play with Indian and Northern Affairs as well as with the first nations communities affected. We do risk assessments as well as some research to determine, as Dr. Franklin has said, what the exposure levels are, and engage the communities in plans to actually look at what can be done in those specific circumstances.

What I'm getting at there, really, is that we know there is a benefit to country foods, a health benefit for the community, so we're trying to be very careful to not have improper or inappropriate dietary substitution where the benefits of the country foods would be lost.

There is an international effort that we are part of, and that's the negotiations on the reduction and elimination of persistent organic pollutants. Many of these pollutants are the culprits in some of the country foods issues affecting aboriginal communities or subsistence hunters and fishermen.

So we do work with Indian and Northern Affairs and with the first nations communities affected to look at the exposure levels and risks posed. Then a very difficult decision has to be taken with the communities in terms of the balance between changing diet, which is something that in recent years we've come to see as not appropriate.

We now know and understand the benefit of the country foods, and therefore we've taken part in actions to reduce persistent organic pollutants such that they do not arrive as problems within the area of the country foods.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan. I have to ask you to wait for the second round.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mrs. Franklin, under the new Food Quality Protection Act of the United States, they now make all preregistration information on pesticides completely open to the public—chemical content, toxicity, use, and likely residues—and yet in Canada all this information on hazards is confidential. It's inaccessible to the public.

Do you agree that it should be made public, and if you don't agree, why should it not be made public?

• 0850

Dr. Claire Franklin: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

With regard to the situation in Canada, we have attempted, at this point in time, to make information available for new active ingredients and major new uses for products being registered.

In answer to your question, I fully believe the information should be made available. I think it's important for Canadians to have information that allows them to see the basis for the decision taken. There is, of course, a small amount of information that is of concern to manufacturers, which really is their detailed manufacturing method. We will attempt to retain confidentiality on that. There's a similar situation in the United States.

The current legislation, as you're well aware, is under active review. We have proposed a number of amendments that will allow us to make that information publicly available. We certainly hope we will be proceeding in the near future with the capacity to be able to do that more fully.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Now, the United States, in their new act, also provides for aggregate exposure and cumulative effects. I find it completely amazing that in 1999 we still assess pesticides individually and don't look at cumulative effects when records show that in an apple, something like 16 pesticides are used. There's the cross relation of pesticides in use.

Do you agree that in any act, which I hope is amended very, very soon, we should look at aggregate total exposure?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The activities delineated in the Food Quality Protection Act, which include aggregate exposure, cumulative exposure, and additional safety factors when dealing with children, are all ones we have very closely monitored. We've been involved with and have participated in various of the scientific groups that have looked at this within the U.S.

I fully support this information. In fact, we have already put into place, along with the U.S., the utilization of cumulative exposure, which is a very challenging scientific issue. The U.S. is also working towards developing the process whereby they will be able to do that. We're actively monitoring that and will also include that approach in our decisions.

I would like to point out, though, that the U.S. has not yet incorporated cumulative exposure. They are exploring how that is done. They're awaiting some final scientific reports that will be coming out imminently. We are certainly involved and interested, and we'll be utilizing that approach as well.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Finally, Eli Neidert and Glenn Havelock of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in a November 1998 report, say this:

The evidence clearly indicates that both the contamination rates and the violation rates for domestic and imported produce are moving closer together.

This is with regard to pesticide residue. In some cases—for instance, celery—the rate of residue in Mexican produce and Canadian produce is now equal, and violation rates are the same.

They're talking about doubling of the residue rate between 1989 and 1994. They detected 16 types of different pesticide residues on apple shipments.

I must admit, despite all the glowing reports about checks and balances, that I'm scared as hell. I find this whole pesticide thing a really terrible business. The chemical companies seem to be controlling the market and pushing this stuff on us. I'm wondering what we can do to ensure that the food we eat is without any residue at all.

Regardless of the statement by the gentleman from the food inspection agency, that if it's below the legal requirements of Health Canada, then it's safe, I don't agree that people find it safe. They are really scared, because the rate of cancer is increasing so badly.

• 0855

What do we do about this stuff?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I understand your concerns and your comments. I would just like to put a little bit of perspective on it and then comment on what we believe we can collectively work towards to perhaps at least get closer to what you would like to see, which is no residues at all.

The number of violations, I would like the record to show, are actually very low. That number has not changed significantly over the years.

With regard to the fact that we are seeing more residues in the last ten-year period, again, I would ask that you specifically speak to CFIA for their views as to why they're seeing that. I think they have given some general comments as to why they believe the numbers are up, but I think you would get more specific information directly from them.

In answer to your broader question, I think collectively we are in an era where we really are trying to see a reduction in pesticide usage or an enhanced or increased utilization of alternatives. I think that really is important. It's a challenging area, and I think it's one in which we have worked to identify some of the ways we can do that. We've worked collaboratively with other departments, with the provinces, with growers, and with the industry to try to enhance the integrated pest management concepts.

I think that's a good way to reduce, if not eliminate, pesticide usage, to try to encourage users to go with other tools. I think that's something we started very early on in the agency.

We can certainly provide you with more details on the projects where we've worked on that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Gilmour, suivi par Monsieur Charbonneau.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Franklin, before I became an MP I was a forester. I was a licensed pesticide applicator in the herbicide area. The training courses were well done, I think, in terms of application rates, storage, protective clothing, and this type of thing. The difficulty arose in the chemical you were using.

I'm sure you're aware of the 2,4-D debate a decade ago in B.C., for example, where you could get a pile of research documents on one side of the issue from very credible sources and you could get an equally high pile on the other side of the issue from very credible sources.

How do you determine, or who determines, when you're licensing a pesticide, who does the research? Do you do it in-house? Do you rely on the chemical companies? Is it farmed out to universities? How do you decide on which research data is the correct data?

Dr. Claire Franklin: That's definitely a challenge. For products that have been on the market for a number of years, there is a very large volume of data. The data has been done by both the manufacturer as well as universities and research agencies throughout the world. As you well know, science often provides conflicting information, so it's without doubt a challenging area.

We have experts within the agency, and in many cases we also utilize outside experts to try to help us come to the appropriate decisions when we do have what appears to be conflicting information.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: As you're aware, the environment commissioner came out last week with his report. He had some pretty scathing remarks regarding pesticides. Particularly for ones that have been on the market for 10 and 15 and 20 years, we're relying on the data of that period, from perhaps two decades ago, for a chemical. The Americans are retesting. They're looking at different chemicals.

The environment commissioner was quite critical of our process, that we're not going back and looking again at some of these older chemicals that are licensed.

Is there any plan to do that, to do the catch-up on these chemicals?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, definitely. I think what the commissioner pointed out was that a detailed overall strategy for reviewing all of the pesticides that are currently or have been registered wasn't in place.

• 0900

You may not have been here when I mentioned in my opening comments that we actually do have such a strategy that has been through the Pest Management Advisory Council to ensure that they are in support, and the multi-stakeholder groups. We want to make sure, as we're implementing what we were asked to implement in the stakeholder review in the blue book, that everybody is still comfortable with that.

I should point out the fact that we are just really now proposing to launch this overall strategy. We do have a capacity to do re-evaluation. We have been criticized that it's slow, and that we don't seem to come to final decisions, but we have a number of products that have been in that process, and there have been many steps taken as we work towards a final and ultimate decision with that.

As well, if there is negative information arising from another country, primarily the U.S., that is doing a review, we keep a very close watch on that. So we would be in a position to take action based on that.

I really would not like to leave the impression that we do nothing. It's just that we are really trying to improve this, and have a very consolidated program to re-evaluate all of the older products.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Monsieur Charbonneau, followed by Mr. Pratt, Madam Torsney, Mr. Jordan, and the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like to ask Dr. Franklin to give us an update on the workings of the F/P/T Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides. It held its first meeting in November 1997 and its mandate is to strengthen federal/provincial/territorial relationships with the aim of enhancing sustainable pest control practices. I would like to know what is the degree of cooperation within the committee between Ottawa and the provinces, and Québec in particular. Is the cooperation good or bad in this area?

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: Thank you very much.

One point I would make is that the committee as it currently stands was struck in 1997. Prior to that there in fact were two committees. There was what was called the CAPCO committee and an FPT committee. They were in place at the time the agency was formed. What we did do was consolidate these committees to strengthen them.

I'm really pleased to say that the relationship between the federal government and the provinces with regard to pesticide regulation through this committee is very good. As I mentioned earlier, there is a strong level of activity at the provincial level with regard to pesticides. They have the responsibility for sale and distribution, and we have the responsibility for registration. We do work collaboratively on this committee.

Quebec in particular, in response to your question, is an active partner in this committee, and we're very pleased with that.

As well, a member of the FPT committee is also on the minister's Pest Management Advisory Council.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a second question?

The Chairman: You may.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In your presentation and in all your documents, the need to harmonize between Canada, the U.S., the member states of NAFTA and other countries is mentioned.

I would like to ask a question relating to a comparison between Canada and the U.S. Generally speaking, do we have more stringent or less stringent standards in Canada? Which country has some catching up to do if we are to harmonize? Do we have to bring our standards down to the level of U.S. standards or is it the opposite, do we have to bring our standards up to the U.S. level?

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: The activity we've embarked on comes from a recommendation that came out of the multi-stakeholder review committee, which was to enhance harmonization. So that is a direction we were given.

• 0905

The way in which we ascertained, at a very early stage, whether our standards were stricter or more relaxed than in the U.S. was to take a pesticide submission that both countries had reviewed separately. We then meticulously compared the way in which that was done, because we wanted to assure ourselves that not only were the requirements the same, but the processes for us to do risk assessment were similar. That was the very first step we took.

I'm pleased to say that in fact there were some differences with regard to our approach, but ultimately the way in which it was done was similar. The conclusions we drew in that review were similar. We concluded that we would not be embarking upon a relationship that would in any way lower the standards we expect with regard to protection of health and the environment in Canada.

We also felt that, given the direction that we were to build on reviews done by the U.S. for the re-evaluation program, it was very critical that we establish that relationship and our confidence that the systems would be similar. We then built on that with regard to new submissions in a way to encourage reduced-risk products, because we gave a priority to the review of those particular products. We did those jointly with the U.S.

So we feel that we have established that the standards are not different. We've harmonized, so we are not either duplicating or asking something that's slightly different but really doesn't make a difference. We have, I think, collectively worked towards getting the best of all the activities together.

As I point out, we have utilized the newer processes the U.S. has put in under the Food Quality Protection Act. I do believe there has not been a weakening in any way of the standards we have come to expect.

The Chairman: Monsieur Charbonneau and Mr. Pratt, followed by Madam Torsney.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Just to follow up on that question concerning the Food Quality Protection Act, that act of course gives the United States the power to prohibit the importation of products treated with pesticides banned in the U.S. I'm thinking in specific terms of lindane.

Is it possible, in terms of other categories of pesticides, that the harmonization process is going to result in a significantly more restrictive regulatory regime?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. As we move towards utilizing some of these newer, scientifically defensible approaches, it may result in some stricter application for some products, but it would not be my conclusion that we would automatically see a more restrictive situation.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I have a second question.

I understand Le bulletin des agriculteurs in April 1999 indicated that some farmers who cultivate large fields have been reducing the amount of the pest control products they use by as much as 15%. They report that the results have been satisfactory from their standpoint.

From that standpoint, a concern arises as to whether or not the recommended application levels by the manufacturer are perhaps a little too high for strictly economic reasons, in terms of their profit motive.

I'm just wondering if, as a result of feedback you're getting from users, there have been any re-examinations of the level of pesticides recommended by the manufacturer and whether or not that has in fact resulted in asking the manufacturer to reduce the recommended application levels.

Dr. Claire Franklin: The involvement of farmers in that type of information, if it's provided to us, would certainly encourage us to have a look at the use rates.

• 0910

I would point out that in Canada we do review the efficacy data provided at the time the product is up for evaluation. We work very closely with the manufacturers at that stage to ensure that the application rate is as low as it can be. We're very interested in ensuring that we do have the lowest rates, so it is an important step in the evaluation process for us to work towards that.

In the amendments to the legislation, we'll be looking at the capacity to use somewhat lower rates, particularly if they're involved in IPM programs. We have been active in establishing IPM projects to pull together all of the partners in that area, because it's certainly possible that there can be lower use rates in an IPM program.

Mr. David Pratt: Just as a supplementary, have you gone back to any individual manufacturer and said, in terms of a re-examination of this from the user's standpoint, that you think it may be appropriate to reduce the application levels?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Offhand, I cannot cite specific examples, but I know we would certainly consider doing that if the information was presented to us.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

Madam Torsney, followed by Mr. Jordan, and then the chair.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

Dr. Franklin, yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen it was reported that half of Canada's telephone poles have been treated with pentachloraphenol, a wood preservative and pesticide that's been under review by the federal government for 20 years.

Is a decision expected soon on this product? When can we expect this? Is it safe for our telephone poles and for everyone living in communities that have telephone poles?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I would like to point out that the re-evaluation, you're correct, has been ongoing for a long period of time, but I would also point out that there have been very significant steps taken at various periods during that time.

Pentachloraphenol is a compound that was much more widely utilized at that point in time, and there were higher levels of contaminants in it. In 1981 there were some significant reductions in the use pattern of the product. Again, in 1990 there were further reductions. At this point in time, the utilization of pentachloraphenol for telephone poles is the only remaining use of the product.

So I wouldn't like to leave you with the sense that something was started that long ago and nothing was done, because very significant steps have been taken. At this point in time we are working collaboratively with the U.S. on this one, and anticipate a decision before the end of this calendar year for that final remaining use of pentachloraphenol. But I would like to point out that this is a very challenging area and a very challenging decision, because there are really no alternatives at this point in time for treatment of telephone poles.

The other thing I should point out is that the amount of pentachloraphenol that is utilized is only 20% of what was utilized not too many years ago. So we have been really working towards reducing the usage and lowering it as much as we can.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But if I understand this correctly, dioxins and furans are components of pentachloraphenol....

You say that word better than I do.

Dr. Claire Franklin: I've had 20 years of practise.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: These things are declared toxic by Environment Canada. They're going to be track 1 substances. I gather—and tell me if I'm wrong—PMRA is allowing substances about which another department is saying, “Bad; remove; virtually eliminate.” On the other hand, another department is saying, “It's okay, you can use things that have these components in them.”

Dr. Claire Franklin: It is a microcontaminant in the product, and it is at a level that has been reduced significantly from the time the product was initially put on the market.

We also recognize that dioxins and furans as a group are track 1 substances. We too want to regulate track 1 substances. We're not in conflict.

What we have to consider is that if you have a level that is low, is it significantly problematic such that you have to take immediate and precipitous action, or do you have to establish some other form of control for that?

• 0915

So we will be reading very carefully the document that has come forward from the CEPA process and then determining how the recommendations from that process impact on the final decision we have to make on pentachloraphenol.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Now, with regard to Canada and U.S. assessments, we certainly know that things that are used, or were used, in the southern U.S. have moved up into our northern climates. The cold weather is condensing things and bringing them down into...and we've heard about country foods and everything else here.

If you're going to harmonize your process, are you going to ensure that if you're taking an analysis from the United States it's recalculated for a colder climate? Are you going to lead the way by saying to the United States, look, that might be fine in a warm climate, but it's wreaking havoc in the north? How are you combining and re-evaluating, and also leading in saying, no, you can't use those products in warm weather, because we end up with the residue?

Dr. Claire Franklin: That's a very real challenge, not only for us in harmonizing with the U.S. but within the U.S. That's a very large country, and it has products that they would utilize both in the south of their country as well as in the north.

When it comes to residue information, we do require that information be generated that would be relevant to the kind of climatic conditions we have. It doesn't necessarily have to be Canada versus the U.S.; it could be areas that would be on either side of the border that would in fact be very similar. So what we have harmonized is that residue data that would be generated in a region suitable for Canada as well as the northern U.S. would be appropriate if those data were generated anywhere within that zone.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, we'll come back to you in the second round.

Mr. Jordan, Mr. Casson, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to touch a little bit on cost recovery. In your strategic plan you predicted, in 1997-98, a $4 million shortfall. I'm wondering if that was the actual number, and then what was the number in the subsequent year.

My second question is, I guess that regime that was selected for cost recovery was done so as a result of the multi-stakeholder assessments in a cross-country tour. Why do you think that shortfall occurred? What happened? What's the cost-recovery regime you're pursuing now as a result of that shortfall?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The shortfall that was projected at $4 million was $4 million, and the shortfall in the second year of cost recovery was also $4 million.

Our analysis of why that happened was that the maintenance fee was based on a certain percentage of products paying full maintenance fees versus a certain percentage paying lower maintenance fees. The information was such that in fact more of the products have lower sales, and they're paying lower maintenance fees.

So that, we believe, really was a result of the information we had available to us to be able to make that decision.

Mr. Joe Jordan: What's the strategy for making up that shortfall now? Are we going to look at a different way of cost recovery, or is it that the industry's adjusted and it'll work from now on? What's the plan?

Dr. Claire Franklin: There are several possibilities, and they're under active discussion at this point in time. In fact, for the previous two years, we were provided some additional resources from within government so that the shortfall was in the order of $2 million as far as the program was concerned.

We have under discussion at this point in time several approaches. Should we go back in and modify the fee structure not to increase fees, as such, to increase the base, but simply to allow us to achieve what we had projected? The other is to modify the program, the complete program, and make it work within a $2-million-less budget. The other is whether or not there might be some additional resources from within government that could be applied to the program.

Those in essence are the areas that are under current discussion within the department.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is there any timeline associated with that?

• 0920

Dr. Claire Franklin: We would like to have that as soon as possible, but I don't have a specific delineation as to when that final decision would be taken. It is, as you can well imagine, being actively discussed.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Franklin, I want to get back to something Mr. Pratt had brought up, and possibly Mr. Gilmour as well—namely, application rates.

Now, these products that are used in agriculture or aquaculture or the forestry industry or wherever are very expensive, and the users certainly want to use as little as possible to get the job done. You indicated that if you had the information supplied to you by the users on application rates, then you would make this information available.

Is this not something you should be doing for the end user, looking at these pesticides and testing them to establish what the proper application rates are to reduce residual, to reduce the amount going into the environment?

It seems to me that the manufacturers would have a definite prerogative, I guess, to put an amount to be used in an application, but it should be determined by an independent board or agency, possibly yourselves, I think, as to what the actual application should be to be effective. Do you not see that as part of your function?

Dr. Claire Franklin: It is part of our function, and we do that. Information is provided to us, at the time we're making the decision on whether or not to register a product, that clearly allows us to identify whether the rate being proposed on the label is actually the lowest rate that is effective. It allows us to determine whether all of the insects and/or weeds included in the label are in fact regulated by that particular product.

So we do a very extensive look at that. In fact, for many products, the use rate that is on the label when it's finally registered is different from the one that originally came in. So we really do that.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do you do actual field testing, then? How do you establish that? Explain the process a bit for me, if you could.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, there is field testing. It's done for a couple of reasons when it comes to pesticide utilization. One set of field tests are, as I spoke to a little earlier, to determine what the residues are and what the residues would be in Canadian climatic conditions. The other field testing is to determine whether the product works and what the levels are at which it works so that we can determine what is the lowest effective application rate that can be put on the label.

Mr. Rick Casson: So these are actually tests done by your agency.

Dr. Claire Franklin: They're not specifically done by my agency. These are tests that are done by the manufacturer. A number of the agriculture research stations throughout the country are also involved in doing some of the field testing for products.

Mr. Rick Casson: So would you say, then, that each pesticide that is approved has had independent testing, or do you use manufacturers'?

Dr. Claire Franklin: We use manufacturers'. The responsibility for generating the information to support the safety and efficacy of a product is the responsibility of the manufacturer.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

It's nice to hear a Reform member advocating a larger role for government.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I'll pick up from my environmentally minded friend from the Reform Party and from Mr. Lincoln's questioning as well.

One of the concerns I've had involves the issue of environmental hypersensitivities with respect to both chemicals and pesticides. Mr. Lincoln's comments during his questioning referred to what is considered to be safe levels of pesticides in terms of application, and how this now is becoming more of an emerging science.

• 0925

I'm concerned more about the cumulative effects than the effects of perhaps a single application. When you're analyzing an application for a particular pesticide, is the issue of environmental hypersensitivities to chemicals and pesticides being taken into account today?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The issue of sensitivity is one that is part of the process when we're determining what acceptable levels can be. In fact, there are many safety factors applied. We determine, through the toxicology testing information, the level at which there are no observed effects. Safety factors are then applied to that to even further reduce what would be considered an acceptable level to humans.

The issue of environmental hypersensitivity per se is not a factor that we can put into specific decisions, but we are aware of that. There's an active program within Health Canada to really try to delineate and get further information on the whole issue of hypersensitivity.

So it is something we are certainly aware of. In a general sense, with the broad safety factors that are applied, we feel that certainly the amount of exposure is definitely reduced.

Mr. John Herron: I guess that's my concern. You mentioned that you try to share as much information as you can with respect to some of the analyses that take place with respect to our American cousins. How much study is taking place on that issue with respect to the Americans? Could you or perhaps Health Canada expand on that?

Then I have a short third question, Mr. Chair, if I might.

Mr. Roderick Raphael: We are doing two lines of work in the area of environmental hypersensitivity. Health Canada is cooperating with Nova Scotia Health and Dalhousie University to fund a centre, through Dalhousie University, specifically looking at environmental hypersensitivity as a medical condition in terms of developing the information to assist medical and health practitioners in dealing with this issue and in terms of delineating mechanisms through the research that would be of assistance in terms of the evaluation of pesticides or other toxic substances.

As well, within the toxic substances research initiative recently announced by ministers Rock and Stewart, we have a stream of activity on the cumulative effects of toxic substances. There are a number of projects devoted to pesticides and sensitivity in terms of environmental hypersensitivity.

There is also a stream of activity on persistent organic pollutants, many of which are now de-registered pesticides in Canada.

With respect to the U.S., our work is really being done through a cooperative agreement between the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control at Health Canada and the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, and the U.S. government. An interesting piece of work is going on in that, and we would be happy to provide the committee with more information on that work.

Mr. John Herron: Can I conclude from your last comment—

The Chairman: A short one, please.

Mr. John Herron: —that Health Canada is a fair way along in terms of recognizing environmental hypersensitivity as a medical condition?

Mr. Roderick Raphael: I think I'd be very careful before I would commit to recognizing it as a medical condition, per se. We are doing and are involved in extensive research with the health care community to determine the nature of the condition, through which we hope it will have the documentation associated with it to become recognized as a medical condition.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

There is enough time for a second round of questions if the questions are short and the answers are short as well, but first allow the chair to ask a couple of brief questions.

• 0930

Dr. Franklin, I've read your memorandum of understanding that dates back to 1996. I assume it's also available for francophone parliamentarians.

The first bullet reads this way:

The mission of the PMRA is to protect human health and the environment by minimizing the risks associated with pest control products, while enabling access to pest management tools, namely, these products and sustainable pest management strategies.

This is obviously a mixed mandate. Of these two thrusts, so to speak, which prevails in the end?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The mandate is written in that way to recognize that currently around the world we are moving towards minimizing risks, encouraging development of reduced-risk products, and also encouraging integrated pest management, which would really be part of the sustainable pest management strategy. So it is really a recognition that we have products that are currently used and will continue to be used while we're moving towards that goal.

I recognize that it may appear to be a mixed message, but I think it really is delineating the reality of the situation we have.

The Chairman: What does “minimizing risks” mean?

Dr. Claire Franklin: In our case, we would minimize risks by looking at what the actual risks would be and then minimizing those through various risk management techniques. We can, for environmental areas, utilize buffer zones. We can, for workers, insist on protective equipment and that type of thing.

So we have a number of possibilities for minimizing the risks.

The Chairman: In your opinion, are risks minimized if, as the Commissioner of the Environment informs us on page 324, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and you people have not arrived at signing a memorandum of understanding on the use of pesticides in aquaculture?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I would take the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to ask John Smith to comment. He's been actively involved on behalf of the agency in the area of aquaculture and has been involved in an integrated pest management program on aquaculture.

Dr. John Smith (Senior Project Manager, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): We welcome the commissioner's recommendation for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to develop a policy on sustainable aquaculture. We'll be participating in doing that.

We have worked closely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada in the area of products used in aquaculture. Even though there isn't a formal MOU signed, there has been close cooperation.

The Chairman: When will an MOU be signed?

Dr. Claire Franklin: We're hoping to have one signed by the fall. We've been actively working with the department to proceed with this.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some interesting issues that we do really need to get our heads around, but we believe we are making significant progress in that area.

The Chairman: Finally, Dr. Franklin, are you as concerned as the commissioner is when he writes about the lack of effective cooperation between the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the departments that undertake scientific research activities?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, certainly, I'm always concerned when I read a comment like that. But I would offer that the cooperation is perhaps not as lacking as might have been suggested. With the particular case studies that were studied there may have been an appearance of that, but we certainly do work with various of the departments and have mechanisms for providing information to them, for asking for their input on guidelines we're developing.

We look forward, as we get more actively involved in a re-evaluation program, to being able to utilize the research generated in the sectoral departments.

The Chairman: Can you indicate to this committee, then, in which areas cooperation is yet to be achieved?

• 0935

Dr. Claire Franklin: The areas in which we have not had as much involvement as I think the commissioner has suggested, and I believe we can have, is working together to develop the kinds of research that would be useful for making improved regulatory decisions, and utilizing that information in the re-evaluation program.

The Chairman: Which are the departments involved?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The departments I'm aware of that do have research activities are Health Canada, Environment Canada, Agriculture Canada, DFO, which does work on fisheries habitat, forestry definitely, and NRCan definitely does research. We would certainly be utilizing that information as appropriate.

The Chairman: And where is this lack of cooperation, as referred to by the commissioner, emerging?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I believe his case studies were the ones on which he based that conclusion. I think they may reflect issues that were underway for a long period of time prior to—

The Chairman: Can you be specific, please, rather than so vague?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Well, the case studies that the commissioner referred to were carbofuran, the acrolein—

The Chairman: Would you provide a list of these areas to the committee in writing so that you will have sufficient time to put this together?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, certainly.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll move on to the second round.

[Translation]

Madam Girard-Bujold, you may ask a very short question.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Dr. Franklin, my question is about public involvement. You do know that the public is now more aware of pesticide use. How is your agency educating the public about the effects of pesticides on health?

Are you considering involving the public more and more at your agency?

Let me read you one of the suggested questions in the briefing notes prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch:

15. Is Health Canada aware of the changes proposed by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature to the existing Pest Control Products Act? If so, what do officials think of them?

[English]

The Chairman: A brief answer would be appreciated.

Dr. Claire Franklin: On the issue of educating the public, there is certainly a relationship from our perspective with the provinces when it comes to providing that information. We also have an active program with the provinces on training and licensing of applicators. So I think we've taken a number of steps to be able to provide some additional information in that area.

With regard to the involvement of the public, we certainly are proceeding towards making available to the public the bases for the decisions prior to final decisions being taken for full registration of products.

These are areas we are actively working towards, to be in a better position to provide that type of information, allowing the public to be more informed.

The Chairman: Merci, Madam Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I want to highlight some of the goals, as the chairman pointed to, that were highlighted in your mandate and where there are some conflicting statements.

Under your goals, you specifically say, “protect health, safety and the environment”, but you also have “support the competitiveness of [industry] and manufacturing”, and then “regulate cost-effectively in an open and transparent manner”.

If a lot of it is cost-effective cost recovery, all the industry has to do is tighten the screws on the revenue you get and then claim you're not supporting their industry. What are Canadians left with in terms of their health and the environment? If you're under the lead agency of the Department of Health, you should be free to conduct your research and your analyses for the health and safety of our whole environment and our public.

As well, on the aspect of tests, migratory species are another issue. In terms of some of your regional offices and laboratories, in Quebec you have only one in one major city. In some other provinces, you're more in the rural area. Who assesses these locations?

The continent looks almost like a turtle. The hump of the turtle is around the 49th parallel, and then it seeps out the other way. You have the whole North Saskatchewan/Churchill river system there, which is not even heavily burdened by agricultural residues, but your agencies don't exist along these watersheds. How do we access Health Canada?

• 0940

You've mentioned Arctic contaminants, but the northern half of the provinces are heavily populated, heavily dependent on country foods, and these residues are coming from the agriculture industry. All the rivers flow north, coming from agriculture centres to the south.

Nobody seems to be aware of any issues of concern. Has there even been an issue of any of these rivers being unsafe because of pesticides?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The centres in which we're located are certainly in areas where there is perhaps more utilization of pesticides, but we have broader coverage than may be apparent from those centres. We have access to inspectors who are available throughout the provinces, and they would be located in various areas. We have a capacity to have that.

So I think that identification of where the office is perhaps does not give the fullest picture on that.

If we have information that comes from monitoring that may be done by other departments, or certainly from the provincial level, that indicates levels of concern, the information would be provided to us.

So I think there's a very broad network federally-provincially and with other federal departments to get that type of information. We would have an awareness if any unacceptable levels were being picked up in watersheds.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Can the public request—

The Chairman: We are cutting off others, Mr. Laliberte, so can you make it very brief, please?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: As I said, in northern Canada we don't have an abundance of agencies, provincial or anybody. Can the public request that these studies be conducted by your agency?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, they can request if they believe something needs to be done. It would be within the federal family to determine the best way in which that information could be achieved, yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan, one question, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Earlier we had talked about residues exceeding limits that had been established, and the fact that you would work with northern communities. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program has identified lindane as a neurotoxin. People in the north have higher levels than what has been issued by your levels of concern guidelines, yet they cannot get any information on the public health assessment and the related data used by your agency to manage the pesticide lindane.

I'm wondering if you will give this information to the environment and sustainable development committee and let us know why, even though you talk about working with DIAND, you were unwilling to provide to DIAND the information on lindane, at the LRTAP, or long-range transport, POPs protocol.

So I'm wondering if, (a), you will provide this information to the environment and sustainable development committee, and (b), you can answer as to why you would not release this information to DIAND.

Dr. Claire Franklin: The information requested for that particular committee was information provided by the manufacturer to the agency for the purpose of registration of the product. The way the current Pest Control Products Act is set up, we are not legally allowed to provide that information to other agencies. That is because of the way in which the access to information legislation is written, and the protection provided to confidential business information.

Those are the constraints under which we are currently faced with the existing legislation. We certainly are anticipating being in a very different position with amendments to the legislation so that in the future we would not be constrained in the way in which we currently are.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So we're going to see amendments to the legislation?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because the minister, from what I understand, has said he's going to make technical information more available to people who are affected.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When can we see that?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The minister has asked the agency to present information and have discussion with the Pest Management Advisory Council, which we have done.

• 0945

I know the minister is awaiting comments in the very near future from that particular committee with regard to the amendments to the legislation.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I can't predict that at this point in time, but I know the minister will be meeting with members of that council in the near future.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And when is the near future?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I believe within the next several weeks he will be meeting with members of the council.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln followed by Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just as a brief comment, I hope that in the new law, which can't happen too soon, we'll have a five-year review. To have a pesticides law, of all things, last 30 years is completely unacceptable.

To follow up on the chairman's comments, I just saw in the commissioner's report that acrolein is being used in irrigation in canals. The Alberta government asked for a clarification, because under the Fisheries Act, which provides for zero tolerance, acrolein couldn't be used because it kills fish, and yet the PMRA says, no, it's okay to use acrolein; according to them, it's safe under their standards.

Apparently there's no agreement between DFO and the PMRA, and acrolein still appears to be used, killing the fish.

I also wanted to ask you about atrazine, which is used in Canada. According to the EPA in the United States, it's a possible human carcinogen. As well, EBDC fungicides are used in Canada, but according to EPA they are classified as known animal and probable human carcinogens.

When we have found out that pesticides are killing fish, or they're considered by the U.S. EPA as human or animal carcinogens, what is the problem here in taking the precautionary principle and banning these things in Canada? What is wrong with us? Why do we allow these things to happen knowing that other jurisdictions and other ministries are saying there is a danger, and be careful? We still carry on and let the manufacturers use these things.

Dr. Claire Franklin: On the acrolein, the issue is whether or not irrigation canals are considered to be fish habitat. That really, as I mentioned earlier, is the crux of the issue.

We have not said that acrolein doesn't have the potential to kill fish—there's no question—but the decision is whether an irrigation canal is considered to be an irrigation canal or whether it's considered to be a fish habitat.

As I also mentioned, some provinces define irrigation canals as not fish habitats, and others do. So the situation is very clear that....

We are also very cognizant, and on the label have indicated, that there needs to be extreme caution that if the product is used in an irrigation canal there is not impact on waters that might be received into what would be a fish habitat.

So I think the issue is perhaps a little more complicated than might appear at first glance, and it really depends on the definition of fish habitat.

With regard to the other products you've mentioned, the fact that something may have that capacity is not outside of what we have to look at when we have the information to make decisions on products. I would point out that to the best of my knowledge, these products, even with that designation in the U.S., are still utilized and are registered products in the U.S.

With the levels of exposure that might occur and the type of end point that's there, it is considered that there is an acceptable margin of safety. But these are products that are registered in the U.S. and around the world as well.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I must say, I would be really scared to find out that any crops were irrigated with any product that would kill fish. If it kills the fish, then certainly it can't be very good for irrigation of possible food products.

Dr. Claire Franklin: That relationship would also be taken into account with regard to any residue levels, what level they would be, and what other effects there would be on non-fish species. So that would be part of the evaluation process.

• 0950

The Chairman: Well, you've certainly given us a stunning answer, Dr. Franklin. We'll study the blues and take it from there. Time is not on our side today.

Mr. Gilmour, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Franklin, we're all aware of pesticides that have been licensed, found to be harmful, and then removed from the shelves, probably the most notorious being DDT. We strongly suspect there are other pesticides currently licensed that are causing harm.

Now, in response to Mr. Pratt, you said that if information came your way, you would look at it and review that product. The difficulty I'm having is, how would that happen? You're not doing the research. The company itself clearly isn't going to give you research data that is going to take their product off the shelf. How in fact, then, in practicality, is it going to happen?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The point you raise is one that is extremely interesting. The companies retain the liability for the products they're marketing. If they had information that indicated there were problems, it would not be in their best interests to suppress that type of information. I think we have many, many indications or situations where information is provided to regulatory agencies.

That information can also come once a product is registered. There are many people doing work on that, not just the manufacturers.

So a number of potential flags would be raised with regard to whether or not a product needs to be looked at any further.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yet you're not aware, in response to Mr. Pratt, of any chemical where that's happened?

Dr. Claire Franklin: No, I think the question Mr. Pratt asked was whether we had information on a product that showed there was actually a lower amount of product utilized, or that farmers found they could use a lower amount for. That was really an efficacy situation.

I was not trying to suggest that we didn't have information that triggered special reviews or decisions that would be taken on products after they had been registered.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau, followed by Mr. Pratt.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Dr. Franklin, my question relates to strategic objective II from your Strategic Management Framework:

To meet the needs of Canadians for an open, transparent and participatory regulatory process and for timely access to new, safer pest control products.

My question relates mostly to the second part of this statement about the need to encourage timely access to new products. I am curious to hear your explanation of the word “timely”. I think that, personally, I would have preferred the words “as soon as possible and as widely as possible”. Why was this particular term chosen? Are there any major problems preventing us from reaching this goal? Should we not be trying to meet this target as fast and as widely as possible? It seems that things are being held back.

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: I think traditionally we've simply used the word “timely” to indicate that we would be moving towards that. We, too, believe “as soon as possible” is the direction we would like to take with this.

So I don't think there was any specific intent to play with words on that. Simply, that's been the standard way in which we—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Is this a way of expressing some difficulties we are not aware of? This is why I am asking you to explain the reasons for this choice of terms. Maybe you are having problems pursuing this objective that should not be downplayed. When you say "timely", it means that you have to proceed cautiously. Is there some research going on? Are you encouraging this research?

Further down in the same document, you mention that there is a backlog of work. Are you flooded with submissions? Is it a problem?

• 0955

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: On the issue of safer products, we have indicated that they will have a priority. If a manufacturer makes an application and the product is considered to be a safer product, it would be picked up when it comes in, and we would do the review as quickly as we could. We in fact have a performance standard for review of reduced-risk products submitted jointly that is shorter than for traditional chemical products. So we are making every effort to have access to these products as quickly as possible.

As you're well aware, we have to review these as well. We have to assure ourselves that the product is safe or that it does meet the stringent standards we expect. So in addition to picking them up more quickly, we also have to make sure they're given an appropriate level of review.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Pratt, any other questions?

Mr. David Pratt: No further questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, do you have a question, or do you, Mr. Jordan, or Mr. Casson?

Well, then, that leaves the chair.

We have a debate in the House at 10 a.m. on the CEPA amendments, so perhaps I can leave with you, Dr. Franklin, some questions you may wish to handle in writing so that we can have an opportunity to study and reflect upon them.

It would be very useful for the committee to know what you mean by “risk management”. It also would be very useful to have a definition of the word “residues”. What does it really mean?

It also would be very useful to know, looking at page 3 of your mission, vision and strategic objectives document, what you mean by “sustainable pest management”, which is your first strategic objective. Your second strategic objective refers to an “open, transparent and participatory regulatory process”.

Now, in exchanging views with Madam Kraft Sloan, you indicated that you are in the process of amending your legislation to achieve that particular goal. I don't know whether you have here an objective that was put on paper in anticipation of an amendment or whether you put it down on paper because you believe you are already offering an open, transparent, and participatory regulatory process. We would like to know the distinction between the two approaches.

Under your guiding principles, you have one of “fostering sustainable practices”. It would be useful to know what you mean by that, and what has been the practical implementation of that principle.

Would you also give us a record so far on the last guiding principle, the last bullet on page 3, which reads, “promoting pesticide risk reduction strategies”.

It would be helpful for us to get some answers to these questions, including this final question, which I have raised before: When there is, in your mandate, a conflict, could you give us examples of how conflicts have been resolved, and in whose favour? We would like—or at least I would like, very much—to understand better how this mixed mandate works out in reality.

Do you think you can do that?

Dr. Claire Franklin: We will make every effort to provide that information to you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, you had indicated in one situation that you would like to see examples.

I think it would be helpful not only to have an understanding of your definitions, etc., but also examples of where this is done and how this is done in a practical way.

• 1000

The Chairman: We may come back to you and listen to you again, perhaps at the end of our hearings, when we have acquired other dimensions of this issue. In the meantime, we thank you and your colleagues very much for appearing before us this morning.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow afternoon.