ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 2, 1999

• 1540

[Translation]

The Chairman (hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we now begin our study on pesticide management and use.

[English]

I welcome the representatives of Environment Canada, Natural Resources, and Fisheries and Oceans, on behalf of the members of the committee. I would like to let you know that yesterday we had the benefit of a session with your colleagues of the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

Today we are extremely happy to have you here for a session that will enable us to understand better what is going on in the field of pest management, and to let you know that we are endeavouring to understand better what happens when an agency is given a mixed mandate. In the case of PMRA, it's the mandate of promoting the production of natural resources and food, while at the same time protecting human health and the environment. It is a mandate that may create, in certain circumstances, a situation comparable to attempting to ride two horses running in opposite directions. For that reason, we would like to understand better what is happening in order to also fulfil the mandate of this committee.

In examining the mandate of PMRA yesterday, we ran out of time for asking further questions. I will ask the clerk to make an inquiry of PMRA to obtain answers to certain passages in the commissioner of the environment's report, which deals extensively with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

I think members of the committee would find it very helpful to receive answers to bullet numbers 4.46 to 4.53, 4.119 to 4.128, and any other recommendations in chapters 3 and 4 of the Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of 1999.

The numbers I just quoted are accompanied by marginal annotations or titles such as “Risk reduction initiatives by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency lack clear goals and focus”. Another title is “Departments not fully implementing the Toxic Substances Management Policy”.

Departments have failed to define even short-term incremental steps toward the objective of virtual elimination of identified substances.

We are concerned that a broad interpretation of pollution prevention will not effect the fundamental shift in thinking called for by the Federal Pollution Prevention Strategy.

So you can see that these are observations by the commissioner that cannot go by unnoticed. He lists specific points I mentioned earlier. There are recommendations and observations that the committee may find very useful to have available, particularly the reply from the regulatory agency itself.

• 1545

This is my brief introduction for today. Again I welcome you, Dr. Winget, and I wonder whether you would like to introduce your colleagues.

Mr. Shantora, would you like to start if you are first in the arrangements, and introduce your colleagues? Then we will invite Dr. Winget and Dr. Pierce to do the same. If you can compress your comments to ten minutes it would be very helpful.

Mr. Vic Shantora (Director General, Toxics Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here.

My name is Vic Shantora. I'm the director general of the Toxics Pollution Prevention Directorate within Environment Canada. I have with me David Brackett, who's director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada. So we have other staff who may assist us through the course of the discussion this afternoon.

I have just a brief statement. I believe committee members have received copies of it from the clerk. If I may, I'll just run through it very quickly for you, Mr. Chairman.

In less than ten minutes, I'd like to just give you an overview of some of our activities in five key areas: a bit of the history of the pesticides program in Environment Canada; a mission statement with respect to pesticides, just touching on some examples of programs and activities we're involved in; the resources we have devoted specifically to pesticides; and finally just a quick wrap-up on the memorandum of understanding between Environment Canada and PMRA.

By way of history, research within Environment Canada on pesticides began in probably about 1965 with studies of the effects of DDT and mercury. This really stemmed a lot from the specific area of wildlife. Prior to PMRA's formation in 1995, Agriculture Canada was the agency responsible for the Pest Control Products Act. They would receive and give us the environmental data for evaluation of effects, and we would offer them recommendations.

In addition to that, we conducted research and monitoring on effects and concentrations of pesticides in the environment. In conjunction with Agriculture Canada, we conducted surveys on pesticide sales. Also, Environment Canada provided environmental evaluations, research results and advice to Agriculture Canada in a whole range of pesticide-related activities, all in support of their decision-making process.

Since the formation of the PMRA, the Minister of Health is now responsible for the pest control product registration. Environment Canada resources that were related to environmental risk evaluations of pesticides were moved to PMRA. That constituted some 12 people and $1.42 million. We no longer receive the industry registration data, so we don't conduct preregistration environmental assessments.

We continue to put emphasis on research and monitoring activities, which I'll describe in a minute, and we and Agriculture Canada no longer conduct surveys on pesticide sales. As previously, the information and research results we develop are offered as advice to PMRA in their decision-making process.

Our mission statement is basically to work with a number of partners to achieve the goals of conserving and protecting the Canadian environment by reducing risks from pesticides. The three program strategies that help deliver on that statement are: to develop and influence policies and practices used in toxics assessment and management; to influence regulatory decisions in Canada and internationally for new pesticides, pesticides already in use and banned pesticides; and to influence the decisions of other stakeholders, which include users, producers, provinces, territories, municipalities and aboriginal peoples.

• 1550

In terms of developing and influencing policies and practices used in toxics assessment and management, we advise in areas where Environment Canada has legislative responsibility and/or expertise—for example, migratory birds. We coordinate and advise through an interdepartmental forum on the implementation of the toxic substances management policy. We provide expertise to international fora that influence risk assessment methods and risk reduction decisions—for example, with the OECD, in developing better test methods for their impacts on reproduction in birds. And we develop computer models, databases, and inventories needed to help improve the risk assessment process. For example, we've done some computer modelling to help try to predict movement of pesticides in the Great Lakes.

We influence regulatory decisions for new pesticides also. We comment on proposed regulatory decisions of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and we provide advice to them on applications submitted to them for permits to conduct field research on new pesticides.

We influence regulatory decisions for pesticides currently in use. In so doing, we undertake research and monitoring in the field to determine whether or not pesticides occur in the environment, what impacts they might have, and what the causes of those impacts might be. We also develop and improve tools for detecting or predicting those impacts, and we identify areas where risk reduction measures need to be strengthened.

We investigate also avian mortality incidents. This is typically in response to wildlife poisoning, trying to understand what happened, what was the cause; was it natural or was it pesticides or some other unforeseen event?

Other ways that we influence regulatory decisions for in-use pesticides is to develop national environmental quality guidelines as background scientific assessments and to interpret monitoring data that we or others may derive.

We contribute to international fora to ensure international action to protect the Canadian environment, with test protocols that we've helped develop in the OECD, and also under the United Nations environment program. As you may know, there are currently some negotiations starting to develop persistent organic pollutants protocol.

In addition, we undertake research and monitoring to help demonstrate the need for international action. I think the most current and the most compelling work to date is the work we're doing on long-range transport of pesticides into our Arctic region.

Influencing decisions of stakeholders is done through a number of fora, a number of activities. For farmers and users, we try to help develop best management practices. We work with the provinces, helping advise them on integrated pest management. There has been significant work by Ontario municipalities to promote pesticide reduction; we try to help with expertise to formulate those programs. Last but not least is our work with the aboriginal people to collect and analyse country foods.

Regarding our current resources, we have 24 people and an operating budget of $1.1 million to support the foregoing activities, and I would estimate that probably about 95% of that is spent on research and monitoring.

Finally, on the MOU between Environment Canada and PMRA—I can make copies available for you if you wish—that was signed in April 1998. It identifies roles and responsibilities for each department. It identifies those areas where we need to develop mechanisms to facilitate exchange of information and advice so that we can better feed the decision-making processes that PMRA uses in the administration of the Pest Control Products Act. We have currently under way some mechanisms to help facilitate the workings of the MOU.

• 1555

We will continue to work with PMRA, and we have made note of the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We'll be working with PMRA and other government departments to ensure that we respond in a timely manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Shantora.

Dr. Winget, please.

Dr. Carl Winget (Acting Director General, Science Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada): Thank you, Mr. Caccia.

I'd like to introduce my colleague Errol Caldwell, program director of integrated pest management, from our Great Lakes Centre, Canadian Forest Service of Sault Ste. Marie.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, allow me to briefly review the activities of Natural Resources Canada. Then you can ask questions about the areas of particular interest to you.

[English]

Actually, NRCan's role is very largely encompassed in the Canadian Forest Service mandate for R and D as regards pesticide use and forest pest management. The basic policy structure thrust for some time in that area has been integrated forest pest management: essentially, the use of harvest regimes and silvicultural interventions, combined with direct control, where needed in managed forests, of insects, diseases, and competing vegetation. Within that context, a very large part of our research effort has been to find alternatives to chemical insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides.

There are perhaps two forms of output from those programs: one, technology transferred to users, especially provinces; the other, support to the federal regulatory agencies, essentially PMRA and CFIA.

It's perhaps worth a comment or two to characterize pesticide use in the forest sector. It's small, less than 1% of total pesticide use of chemical and biological pesticides. The demand for these pesticides is variable and sporadic, simply reflecting the epidemic cycles of the major defoliating insects. Markets for the use of these pesticides, especially the narrow spectrum biological insecticides, are of limited commercial interest. Development and registration costs are high in relation to potential sales.

Consequently, a lot of the exploratory R and D and the assessment of pesticides for forest use are carried out by government agencies such as the CFS. Even given that base from which to work, commercial interest is often difficult to identify.

We have worked with a variety of alternative technologies, such as biological pesticides, essentially the use of pest diseases to control pests, the advantage being they are very highly specific to target organisms. We have also worked with introduced parasites, and the area of natural products, primarily pheromones—sex attractants—to monitor populations or disrupt mating, to some degree with plant extracts.

Biotechnology is an emerging tool for us in two senses: the possible improvement of the pest resistance of species for planting in the intensive forest management situations; the other, to improve the effectiveness of biological pesticides.

Environmental assessment of non-target impacts of pesticides has been a continuing concern. I might refer back to the phasing out of fenitrothion as a major insecticide used against the spruce budworm.

Our operational research basically deals with application techniques to optimize pesticide application to minimize the effective doses required.

We are working more and more with pest decision support systems, which are essentially computer models that schedule harvest regimes and silvicultural interventions to minimize the direct control needed in managed areas, and where that control is needed, to optimize the use of pesticides to get the best bang for the buck.

We have a wide variety of collaborative arrangements, of course, but I will mention the MOU with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Our role is essentially one of research support, information on strategies for pest control and technologies, data and information for the registration of pesticides for forest use, and with CFIA, a similar support role for detection, monitoring, and control of introduced forest pests.

• 1600

There is the broader context of the five Natural Resources MOUs, which includes exchanges of information in the areas of toxic chemicals and pesticides specifically.

Nationally, we work very closely with provinces, forest landowners through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, the Forest Sector Advisory Committee, and the National Advisory Board on Forests. This links us to industry, academia, and NGOs.

Internationally, perhaps the North American Forestry Commission is the best known umbrella agreement for our close collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service and to a lesser extent with Mexico. I might mention the International Union of Forest Research Organizations; and, through PMRA and CFIA, links with the North American Plant Protection Organization, OECD, and the European Plant Protection Organization.

I'll mention a couple of examples of outputs simply to illustrate where we are at this point in time and to give you some concept of the status of pesticide use in forests. Certainly Bt remains by far the most important biological pesticide, making up currently some 90% of forest insecticide use.

We have been working with viral insecticides, which offer the very great advantage of being very specific to individual species. We have developed one in collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service for gypsy moth. We have others for a pine sawfly and the Douglas Fir tussock moth, which is important on the west coast.

I might note the pheromone recently developed by CFS researchers for the eastern pine shoot borer, now being synthesized by a commercial company and using an interesting encapsulation delivery technology developed by 3M Canada. I believe this is the first example of joint registration by PMRA and the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States under the NAFTA umbrella.

We have had difficulty working with alternatives to chemical herbicides. We now have one fungal herbicide in the last stages of development, which hopefully will be going for registration in the coming year.

[Translation]

We will now be happy to answer your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Winget.

[English]

Mr. Swanson.

Mr. Gerry Swanson (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with the opportunity to address you on our involvement in pesticide issues in Canada.

My name is Gerry Swanson. I'm the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister for Oceans in DFO. As such, I have responsibility for our habitat management and environmental science programs, as well as programs to support the Oceans Act, specifically the development of marine protected areas, marine environmental quality guidelines, and programs for the integrated coastal zone management.

With me is Dr. Ron Pierce, who is the director of environmental science. In that capacity he has the responsibility for coordinating our environmental science programs within the department, and also he has direct management responsibility for our relationships with PMRA.

I will keep my statement short so that the committee has the opportunity to ask us questions. We will endeavour to answer those questions, and if we can't do so today, we'll provide that information.

I would like first to provide you with some information on the role of DFO on pesticide issues and then to focus specifically on DFO's scientific activities related to pesticides. The mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans includes the conservation of fish and fish habitat and the development of fishery and ocean resources in a sustainable manner.

Our department has been actively involved in pesticide issues for many years, primarily through the provision of scientific information and advice to aid sound decision making by regulatory authorities. DFO's advice to regulatory authorities also includes the identification of pesticide issues of concern to the protection of fish and fish habitat.

• 1605

As has been mentioned, the regulation of pest control products in Canada is the responsibility of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. DFO, in its role as provider of scientific information and advice on the impacts of pesticides on fish and fish habitat, continues to work closely with regulatory authorities such as the PMRA.

Our scientific work within DFO also supports the work of the Department of the Environment, which has administrative responsibility for section 36 of the Fisheries Act related to the deposition of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish. DFO provides advice on the development of regulations and guidelines regarding the appropriate water quality standards to ensure the conservation and protection of fisheries resources. DFO is an active participant in the acquisition and provision of scientific information and advice on the impact of pesticides on freshwater and marine fish and fish habitat.

Our department has a specific program devoted to environmental science. This national program, called the Environmental Science Program, conducts research on a variety of environmental issues, including research on the effects of pesticides on aquatic life. For example, Dr. Wayne Fairchild, from one of our Atlantic region laboratories, has discovered a historical link between pesticide spraying to control spruce budworm and reduced runs of salmon. The culprit appears—and I say appears—to be a surfactant called nonylphenol, which was used in pesticide mixtures until 1985. He has received over $100,000 from our program for a three-year study on the effects of this on the seawater survival of young salmon.

Priorities for pesticide research are established through consultations with clients, including regulatory authorities such as the PMRA and DOE. In fact, numerous research projects are conducted in collaboration with researchers in other government departments, provincial agencies, and the private sector. The results of research are debated through a transparent peer review process and are communicated to decision makers, including regulatory authorities.

Budget reductions during the federal government's program review and the loss of experienced researchers have challenged DFO's scientific capacity related to pesticides. This is not unique to DFO but transcends all science-based departments. We are, however, taking advantage of the opportunity to move forward through a modest program of rejuvenation of some of that scientific capacity. Importantly, we are increasing our collective effort and commitment to scientific research by encouraging co-operative, integrated research studies that in many cases extend beyond the expertise provided by individual science-based departments. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Swanson.

Mr. Casson, would you like to go first, then Madame Girard-Bujold, Mr. Charbonneau, and Mr. Stoffer.

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

I think it was Natural Resources Canada that commented that of the pesticides used, only 1% are used in the forests. Is there a breakdown of where the pesticides are used and in what industry and area of Canada?

Dr. Carl Winget: I'll ask Mr. Caldwell to respond to that particular question.

Mr. Errol Caldwell (Director, Integrated Pest Management, Natural Resources Canada): We do have figures available that are broken down by year, by provincial jurisdiction on crown land, and by industry land. For example, in 1998 approximately 200,000 hectares of forests were sprayed with insecticides. The total number of hectares sprayed with herbicides in 1994, I believe, was about 150,000 hectares. That's distributed across the provinces, but we can provide detailed information as to exactly how much within each province, if the committee desires.

Mr. Rick Casson: It would be nice if we could have that. But I'm talking about the total use of pesticide, how much is in forestry, how much is in fisheries and oceans, how much is in agriculture? Is that available as well?

• 1610

Mr. Errol Caldwell: Natural Resources Canada does not have that information. We collect the figures strictly for forestry use.

Mr. Rick Casson: How about Environment Canada?

Mr. Vic Shantora: No, sir.

Mr. Rick Casson: There's no idea of how much is used where?

Mr. Vic Shantora: No, sir.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, the researchers have come up with a point here that in the States they've conducted studies to determine that there's no groundwater contamination from the use of pesticides. Can we say the same thing in Canada, that we've done this type of study and we can say the groundwater is not being contaminated by pesticide use?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Speaking for Environment Canada, we do not routinely monitor groundwater. We may have done some research-related work in the past, but I don't have that detail. I do know of at least one study in Ontario, I believe conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Environment about four or five years ago, looking at well-water contamination, but that's all that I'm aware of.

Mr. Rick Casson: You indicated in your presentation that you undertake research and monitoring to determine the occurrence of pesticides in the environment, identify impacts, and develop tools for detecting this type of thing. What then triggers that? When do you do that, if you're not doing it on groundwater and you have no idea of where the pesticides are being used? It seems to me that we should know those things, should we not? We know what kinds there are and who's buying them. We should know where they're going.

Mr. Vic Shantora: Our research and/or monitoring work, for example, for in-use pesticides would be triggered more than anything by probably two areas: perhaps wildlife, and also perhaps surface waters. For example, in the Great Lakes there's been an active program for a number of years. We haven't extended that into groundwater.

Mr. Rick Casson: When I think of pesticide use I think of it in agriculture or the forestry industry or wherever, but we all use them in our homes. Are there any data available to Canadians to indicate how that use of pesticides in our homes affects us, affects our children? If there are, are there any guidelines that people can get their hands on, as far as the use of this stuff is concerned?

Dr. Carl Winget: I would suggest that it's certainly not Natural Resources Canada that has it, but it has been a long-standing interest of Health Canada, I believe. If the information is available, I would suggest they would be the source of it.

Mr. Rick Casson: Well that's a question I guess we'll have for Health Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I'm from a region of Quebec where in the past, the forests have been decimated by the spruce budworm.

Several weeks ago, Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service officials, together with representatives of forestry and paper companies, gave us a presentation on Bt, which is used instead of pesticides to combat the spruce budworm. They informed us that this was one ecologically sound way of addressing this problem. How will the use of this product affect the current situation as it is unfolding?

Some of the charts we have seen show how many Quebec regions will once again be infested by the spruce budworm in the future. Will the use of Bt stem the budworm problem? Will it prove effective on mature spruce trees, or will it be effective only on seedlings?

We also heard - and this left quite an impression on me - that research was being conducted on new transgenic species of trees and that this could lead to the development of a toxin to combat the spruce budworm. Will the introduction of these particular trees eliminate the spruce budworm problem in stands of mature trees, or will it prove effective only on new seedlings, meaning that our forests would be able to regenerate? I know it's a little complicated, but this is a problem in my region.

• 1615

Mr. Carl Winget: I admit that this is a rather complicated subject.

First of all, Bt will not stem the expected spruce budworm infestation, the extent of which is still unknown. When the last outbreak occurred, nearly 60 million hectares in total were infested. Only 12 million hectares were sprayed with pesticides. Bt will protect mature as well as young trees, but it can't protect all of the trees over such a vast area. There's simply not enough money available at the provincial level to spray all of the trees.

Research is being conducted on two transgenic components with the objective being to make trees more resistant to infestations of this nature. The focus is being placed on young trees, particularly in the case of spruce saplings. More in-depth research was conducted into the white spruce. However, the results will not be ready in time for the next outbreak.

As for the benefits of using the product itself, I will ask our expert, Earl Caldwell, to answer your question.

[English]

Mr. Earl Caldwell: I think Dr. Winget has responded quite adequately with regard to Bt itself. The spruce budworm population in the province of Quebec... As I understand it, historically Quebec is the clear indicator of an upcoming budworm population level. Part of the research that has been undertaken with our CFS colleagues along with provincial counterparts has been aimed at developing support systems and an early intervention strategy, centred around the use of Bt primarily, to attempt to at least slow down that population increase, or perhaps even more hopefully to prevent that next large population of spruce budworm. That may be a little bit optimistic, but certainly the intent is to be involved at an earlier stage with the increasing budworm population before it gets to basically an uncontrollable level.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I have a question for DFO officials. I'm sorry to have to ask it now, but I have to leave shortly.

Recently, the newspapers reported on how the decline in Atlantic salmon stocks was linked to pesticide use. How have DFO officials reacted to a study showing a link between pesticide use and declining Atlantic salmon stocks?

[English]

Dr. Ronald C. Pierce (Director, Environmental Science Branch, Habitat Management and Environmental Science Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you.

In response to your question, Madam, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, along with Environment Canada researchers in the Atlantic provinces, has been conducting studies on the link between the use of forest pest-control products and fisheries.

• 1620

The studies we have done so far have demonstrated that there is a linkage between the use of the material in the pesticide formulations and reductions in Atlantic salmon populations, particularly in the sports fisheries. We are continuing that study. The results at this stage are relatively preliminary. We are just funding a new three-year study to look at the actual causal relationships between the carrying agents in the pesticide formulations and possible effects on juvenile Atlantic salmon.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: How long is your study scheduled to last? This would give us some idea so that we can reach a decision.

[English]

Dr. Ronald Pierce: We have been studying this issue for a number of months, and we have a new three-year study that just started this calendar year. We would hope to have some preliminary results from those studies within a year's time.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: However, Mr. Chairman, he said a study had already been conducted. Could we have the results of that study?

You're saying that another study is in the works. Are you going forward with it because your first study failed to produce the results you were hoping for?

[English]

Dr. Ronald Pierce: The findings are not clear-cut. The preliminary studies have been published in the scientific literature and they have been peer-reviewed in the scientific literature. So those studies are already available. What I'm trying to indicate is that the studies so far have demonstrated a possible linkage between the use of a pesticide and fish populations. This does not necessarily mean we have the final answer on those, but we have preliminary information that has been published.

The study we are now funding over the next three years will hopefully give us a better understanding of that causal relationship.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Girard-Bujold.

Could you circulate the findings so far if they are available in a summarized form? Thank you.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like the witnesses' opinion of pages 4-30 and 4-31 of the French version of the Environment Commissioner's report, specifically paragraphs 4.121 to 4.128.

If I've understood correctly what stakeholders have said, it appears the government set up the PMRA several years ago to ensure better integrated management of the risks associated with pesticide use.

We've been told that in the past, a number of stakeholders were involved in this area, but that there was little in the way of a coordinated effort or integrated approach.

I would like to talk about some of the progress that has been made or problems encountered, based on the Environment Commissioner's observations. The latter reminded us that the PMRA was created to restore some order to this whole process and that without the cooperation of the departments you represent, the agency runs the risk of making some bad decisions. Interdepartmental cooperation is critical and one of the roles assigned to you is to serve as an adviser to the agency.

Paragraph 4.125 refers to the inability of the PMRA, Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada to adopt a unified position on the use of pesticides in aquaculture.

On page 4-31 of the French version, a case study is presented demonstrating the inconsistency between the Fisheries Act and the Pest Control Products Act. For instance, in New Brunswick, some decisions that have been made contravene the legislation.

• 1625

Meanwhile, the larger issue of the conflict between the two acts continues. After five years of discussions, the issue has not yet been resolved. The PMRA, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans have held another round of discussions and a working group was struck in 1998 and tasked to report in the fall of 1998. However, the issue remains unresolved at this time.

To begin with, I would like DFO representatives, given their responsibility for aquaculture issues, to give me an update on this file and to explain why, after five years, a resolution has not been forthcoming.

[English]

Dr. Ronald Pierce: As Mr. Swanson indicated in his opening statement, the role of Fisheries and Oceans is to provide scientific information and advice to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in their regulatory decisions. We actually do have a working relationship with the PMRA. We cooperate on a number of different files. I don't recall exactly the issue you're talking about with regard to the issue in New Brunswick. However, DFO does provide advice on the protection of fish and fish habitat to PMRA. It does provide advice to the PMRA also on concerns to DFO with regard to the protection of the fisheries.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there are any pesticides called sedatives, but on page 4-31 of the French version of the report, the problem is clearly spelled out. I'm surprised that several days after the release of the report, no one is able to comment at greater length on this subject.

I'd like to ask the representatives of Fisheries and Oceans to make an effort to explain the problem to us more clearly and tell us what the department is doing to resolve the issue. Or perhaps they could tell us what obstacles they have encountered in the process of trying to resolve this issue. The choice is theirs.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Perhaps I could be of assistance in terms of talking about what our particular role is in pesticide registration and also perhaps provide some clarification with regard to the issue of the inconsistency—if that is the word—between the Fisheries Act and the legislation administered by PMRA.

In terms of the evolution of pesticide registration, up until 1991 we were a core participant in day-to-day activities related to the review and registration of pesticides. In 1991 that role was changed somewhat, and at that particular point in time we began to provide advice to the Department of the Environment on impacts of pesticides with respect to the protection of fish and fish habitat in the context of Environment Canada's input into the process of providing advice on overall environmental impacts. And of course since 1995, with the establishment of PMRA, we've continued to provide advice to that agency as requested.

With respect to the inconsistency, and I'm using that term in an advised sense, but just to talk about the legislative scheme... Section 36 of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of substances deleterious to fish into waters frequented by fish unless that deposit is authorized by regulation. With regard to pesticides, there's a requirement that once a pesticide is registered, the person applying the pesticide must apply that pesticide in accordance with labelling directions. There are situations where a pesticide could be applied in accordance with those directions and that pesticide is deleterious to fish and that deposit has not been authorized by any regulation under the Fisheries Act. That's the issue we're now working with and attempting to resolve in discussions with the Department of the Environment and PMRA. And I believe we will continue to have those dicussions. I believe the regulatory scheme does provide for an accommodation; the quesiton is what that accommodation should be.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Swanson for outlining the nature of the problem. Clearly, there are some conflicting legislative or regulatory provisions and as administrators or officials responsible for enforcing these somewhat contradictory acts, I'm sure its not easy to take an integrated approach. I've understood your explanation of the problem.

You've been dealing with this issue for five years. In 1998, a working group was struck and tasked to report by the fall of 1998. I'm a legislator. I wasn't around five years ago, but this matter is being pursued.

We'd like to hear some suggestions as to how this problem could be resolved. It's not enough for us to hear that there are inconsistencies between the acts and the regulations and that there's nothing that can be done about it. It's nice of you to remind us of this, but what solution do you propose? Would you recommend that we amend the legislation or the regulations in order to eliminate these problems and manage things effectively? As advisers, are your prepared to make that recommendation?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We regret also that a solution to the issue has not been forthcoming to this point in time. We are continuing to work with the other agencies on it. We believe the debate and the discussion that has gone resulting from Mr. Emmett's report has highlighted the issue, put some light on it. And we believe that light is going to compel us to be more diligent in terms of pursuing a solution. With that kind of examination, a solution is much more likely.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you, Mr. Swanson.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Pratt, followed by Mr. Stoffer, followed by the chair.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I arrived a little late and I missed part of the presentation. I'm a little befuddled in terms of this whole issue of who is monitoring pesticide sales. It seems to me if we don't have an idea as to what the magnitude of the usage is through the sales figures, then how can you design a program around prevention?

It does say on page 4 of your presentation, Mr. Shantora, that neither Environment Canada nor Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada conduct surveys on pesticide sales. But it does say on page 2 of your presentation, Mr. Winget, that we know the forest sector is accountable for less than 1% of total pesticide use. How do you come up with that figure in the first place? Why would it not be possible, for instance, to go to the manufacturers and ask for total sales figures—because we must know who produces the pesticides—and look at those sales figures by region and by type of pesticide in terms of whether it's being used for forest use, agriculture use, domestic use, that sort of thing. Is anybody doing that?

Mr. Errol Caldwell: I can address the figures that are collected for the forestry sector. That 1% figure is based on historical information that goes back a number of years. I don't know if I can point to a specific example or set of figures from the other sectors that was used to come up with that 1%.

• 1635

However, the numbers that are collected for the forestry sector, largely by the Canadian Forest Service, are the result of a meeting that takes place every year with our provincial colleagues and also the forest industry. It's called the forest pest management forum, and there is an informal report that's presented at that meeting by each of the participants that summarizes their operational uses for the previous year and also summarizes to the best extent they can the total number of hectares they anticipate to be under insect infestations for the following year and what their possible plans are for the next spray season.

Some follow-up is done just to confirm those figures by some of our staff. It's put into a national forest database, which is a document that's produced I believe on an annual basis. But there is a website available as well that contains this information.

On the 1% figure, I could be wrong, but I believe it goes back to earlier days of CAPCO, which was the Canadian pest control organization of regulators, provincial and federal.

Mr. David Pratt: How many years would that be, any idea?

Mr. Errol Caldwell: That was prior to amalgamation of the individual departmental components to registration into the PMRA, so it would have been prior to 1995.

Mr. David Pratt: I still haven't really received a general answer to the question, though. Mr. Shantora, maybe you can help me with that issue.

Mr. Vic Shantora: Let me try, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. David Pratt: Maybe I could get you as well to comment on an Ottawa Citizen story of a couple of days ago that talked about $1 billion in terms of the total sales for the pesticide industry. I'm presuming that involves not just household use but agriculture, etc.

Mr. Vic Shantora: If I may, I honestly can't tell you what current sales are, so I can't confirm or deny whether the $1 billion is reasonable or just what it covers. I wanted to clarify that prior to 1995, between ourselves and Agriculture Canada, we did do sales tracking. With the creation of PMRA, as my colleague said, that responsibility was moved to PMRA to do it, so we no longer do it.

What I understood from Dr. Franklin's presentation yesterday is that there is a working group currently that's trying to devise a program to start catching sales again. One of my colleagues from Environment Canada is on that working group and it's a multi-stakeholder group.

Mr. David Pratt: So you will be getting the information at some point?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Through PMRA, yes.

Mr. David Pratt: Are you satisfied that it's going to be in sufficient detail to be able to be used as a tool with respect to some of the scientific studies that are being conducted?

Mr. Vic Shantora: That's why we're very interested in the work, and that's why we're at the table. It's hard to say just yet. In fact I understand there's a pilot project going on to help perhaps develop the parameters that all departments would think they'd need to serve their purposes. So I'm hopeful that's where we would end up.

Mr. David Pratt: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question, and either one can answer, but preferably Mr. Swanson, is on the system you have in place now for monitoring pesticides. Was it better before PMRA, or is it better now? Just a before or after answer would be appropriate, please.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We're in a difficult position in terms of answering that question, since we don't have any programs in that respect in terms of that kind of monitoring issue. I really don't have a view as to whether it's better, worse, or the same.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I say that, sir, is the number one priority mandate for DFO is what? What is the number one mandate of DFO?

• 1640

Mr. Gerry Swanson: If I'm allowed to quote my minister, it's conservation, conservation, conservation.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's conservation of fish stocks and habitat, correct?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Correct.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. If that's the case, when the environmental commissioner came out with the one Mr. Pierce said he didn't know much about, how could the PMRA take a position that irrigation canals were not fisheries under the Fisheries Act, yet DFO said they were? How could they override DFO's main mandate of conservation, conservation, conservation? And, may I add, on a precautionary avenue, how could the PMRA override that?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Perhaps I can explain what our position is.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Excuse me, the reason I'd like a shorter answer is because I have many questions and I'm going to be cut off soon. But why would they be able to override you?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'm not sure it's a question of overriding us. One of the issues we have to deal with is the position of people who are using products, on the understanding they have been approved by the federal government or perhaps even by some other level of government. What kind of action is appropriate for other agencies when we run into those kinds of conflicts?

There is jurisprudence in other cases, where companies believed that by following provincial rules, for example, they had the approval of government. In those kinds of circumstances, if one were to embark on some sort of enforcement activity, it's quite doubtful you would be successful in getting a conviction through the courts.

So we are trying to resolve the issue of what constitutes fisheries waters in Canada. We believe it includes irrigation canals. We also believe it includes drainage ditches that are used by farmers across the country.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you for that, sir. The reason I asked that is because there's a company called Scotia Rainbow that produced trout. They were kicked out of Quebec for the environmentally nasty things they were doing. They will now be setting up shop in Whitehead, Nova Scotia. They say it will be a huge farm, they will not take any steps to protect wildlife, and if they have to use pesticides, chemicals and antibiotics when the crowded caged fish get sick, they will not give any public notice.

Having said that, in 1994 the fish farms in New Brunswick used a pesticide they were legally allowed to use because one veterinarian prescribed it. One veterinarian said they could use it, and PMRA or whoever said go for it. As a result of that, 60,000 lobsters were killed. Now 60,000 lobsters fall under the mandate of the DFO for conservation, conservation, conservation.

Again I ask you how you can allow the PMRA to override the main objective of DFO? I just don't understand. I know you're under budget cuts. The estimates are out now and I know you're losing about $25 million to science cuts. I understand that, but I just don't understand how DFO, which has over 1,000 people working on Kent Street and thousands of people across the country, can honestly allow another agency to override its primary mandate of conservation, conservation, conservation and protection of fish stocks and fish habitat.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'm not aware of the company that was relocating to Nova Scotia, which you referred to in the newspaper article.

On the incident of the lobster kill in New Brunswick, I believe there was an investigation of that particular matter. I cannot recall off the top of my head what the conclusion of that particular investigation was. In many of these kinds of cases, though, it becomes a difficult matter for an enforcement agency to determine the source of the contamination in relation to the eventual outcome. That is an issue.

• 1645

In terms of our own staff and our role in this, you have correctly pointed out that we have a number of enforcement personnel, particularly in coastal areas. They are our fishery officers, and their mandate includes primarily questions related to the enforcement of fisheries. But they are certainly out in the field. When incidents such as the one you have mentioned are seen by these people, they either take action or ensure these incidents are reported to the proper authorities in the Department of the Environment, who have eventual carriage for the administration of these sections of the Fisheries Act. We would work with them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you for that.

Mr. Pierce, you said DFO investigated the forestry pesticide runoff for salmon loss. Did you also do it for agricultural runoff? I'm thinking primarily of Prince Edward Island and the pesticides they use on their potato crops.

Dr. Ronald Pierce: No, we focused on the forestry pesticides.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why did you focus on forestry only?

Dr. Ronald Pierce: We had an indication at that time that the carrier agent for the pesticide was a suspected endocrine-disrupting substance, and we wanted to find out more scientific information on that substance.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, thank you, sir.

Mr. Shantora, I have a couple of things for you, sir. You said you have 24 people and a budget of $1.1 million, and 95% of that budget is spent on monitoring and research.

Mr. Vic Shantora: Yes, sir.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How much would the average person be paid? I'm just trying to do the math here. With 24 people at an average salary, I'm thinking maybe $50,000 is more than your budget. So how do you put 95% of $1.1 million into monitoring and research when these people must be paid?

Mr. Vic Shantora: The salary budget is separate.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, very good. Thank you.

Now Mr. Brackett and Mr. Shantora, I'd like to ask the question I asked the gentleman before. Was the situation better before the PMRA than it is now, or is it better now? It's a very important question.

The reason I ask it is because I personally don't like the PMRA. My classic example of DFO—of them holding up my question from Mr. Charbonneau, holding up the primary mandate of fish habitat protection—who knows what else they're doing in this country... So my question to you is—and I would like a direct answer if possible—was the situation better before PMRA, or is it better now? It's a yes or no question.

The Chairman: Avoid the creation of tensions in this room. Would you mind addressing the chair?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I did the same thing when I asked the Deputy Minister of Environment if they had enough money and resources to do their job adequately. He hesitated, there was tension in the room, and he finally said no.

I don't mean to cause any tension. You're certainly not our concern here. Our concern is going after the PMRA. I happen to respect these fine folks and know they're under budget constraints.

The Chairman: Point of order.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): When a question has been put, is it possible to wait for an answer, rather than continually badgering the witnesses?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I apologize for badgering.

The Chairman: It's a point of parliamentary approaches.

Would you mind replying now, Mr. Shantora?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the question of whether it is better or worse, I quite honestly can't tell you that because things have not been static from 1995 to where it is today. We have been through budget reductions. All departments have, as you have noted. We have cost recovery regimes in a number of departments, particularly PMRA. All of those sorts of things influence the capacity to do work.

There are some things Dr. Franklin made reference to yesterday, particularly changes to the Pest Control Products Act, in terms of access to information, that will make things better for all departments, in terms of not only monitoring but having a much better database from which we can derive a scientific program, from which we can then offer better advice.

The Chairman: One quick last question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You mentioned before that Natural Resources and Environment Canada don't keep a record of the amount of pesticides, according to a question. Why not?

• 1650

Mr. Vic Shantora: Prior to 1995 it was Agriculture Canada and Environment Canada that kept the database. It was simply a reality that responsibilities were moved to PMRA in 1995, and that was one of the responsibilities that was moved to them, so we no longer had the mandate or the capacity to do it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We are ready for a second round, but allow the chair to ask a couple of questions.

Mr. Swanson, did I understand you correctly, in reply to Mr. Charbonneau, that there are inconsistencies between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans legislation and PMRA?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I don't think “inconsistency” is the correct term.

The Chairman: I heard you use the term “inconsistencies.”

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes, I did.

The Chairman: So will you please clarify what you really mean?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Certainly. I used the term advisedly.

The Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of substances that are deleterious to fish, unless they are authorized by regulation. Pesticides can be registered by the competent authorities for use and they can be deleterious to fish. The inconsistency, if one wishes to use that word, occurs where there hasn't been a regulation made under the Fisheries Act that also permits the use of the pesticide. The legislative scheme is constructed in such a way that the so-called “inconsistency” can be overcome, but it would require, at this point in time, a regulation to be made under the Fisheries Act because of the absolute prohibition that's contained in the act itself.

The Chairman: Thank you. Whichever term we want to apply to this particular anomaly, let's call it, don't you think perhaps in your presentation this afternoon a reference to anomalies of this kind ought to have been included?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We didn't make the reference because we didn't think it necessarily covered off what we were going to talk about, namely what our particular role is in terms of providing advice to the agencies that have this particular responsibility.

The Chairman: Is this the only anomaly you can think of, or are there others?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: In terms of the legislation? It's a particular problem we have identified and are trying to work with the agency and DOE to resolve. When it comes to—

The Chairman: Is that the only one?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'm not aware of others. I'm looking to my colleagues to see.

The Chairman: How long has this been troubling you?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I think we identified two years ago or so that there was the possibility of having products registered by PMRA and that we would have this potential problem unless there was some way of resolving the issue within the Fisheries Act. It's an issue we continue to discuss with both DOE and the agency.

The Chairman: When will the discussions come to an end?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I cannot predict that with any certainty. I did mention, though, that I think the problems we have been dealing with at the officials level have now a much greater interest in them as a result of the discussions that have occurred over the last couple of weeks. We are working with the other agencies now to prepare responses and action plans to Mr. Emmett's report. At the deputy minister level, committees involving the effective agencies are involved in these discussions, and I believe that is going to accelerate the solutions to the kinds of issues we've identified.

The Chairman: This particular anomaly, so to say, could be corrected, as you mentioned a moment ago, by an adjustment in the regulations under your act. Is that correct?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes.

The Chairman: Is that what you said? And that is within the power of your department to do so?

• 1655

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Those particular portions of the act are administered by the Department of the Environment, so there would necessarily have to be discussion—

The Chairman: Are we talking of section 35?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'm talking about section 36.

The Chairman: Section 36.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes.

The Chairman: Well then, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the adjustment in regulation ought to take place in the PMRA regulations, rather than under the regulations administered by Environment Canada?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: With respect to certain pesticides, we have views on their use. We believe that—

The Chairman: Could we hear those views, then? Could you please put them on the table?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: There are some chemicals that are used with respect to the aquaculture industry, for example, where we have provided advice to PMRA that they should not be used and should not be registered.

The Chairman: And why? Are you going to tell us why?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'll let Dr. Pierce provide more details on that.

Dr. Ronald Pierce: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, we have provided advice to PMRA on registration of pesticides, particularly from DFO's perspective of the protection of fish and fish habitat and the sustainable development of aquatic resources.

If I could, I'll just give a little bit more detail on Mr. Swanson's comment on the work we're doing with the Department of the Environment and the PMRA. We do have a working group that is looking at several different options to try to resolve this inconsistency between the Fisheries Act and the Pest Control Products Act. One of those options is a regulatory option, and that is to have regulations under the Fisheries Act. But there are other options.

It is too early in the discussions between the three departments to indicate which is the preferred option yet. We are still not at that stage.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: But, Mr. Chairman, you asked for a particular instance where we have provided advice, where we do not believe that use was suitable. One example that comes to mind is cypermethrin, which is used by the aquaculture industry in the treatment of sea lice.

The Chairman: Yes. We are going back to the example referred to by Mr. Charbonneau. What are your comments to the fact that PMRA has not yet made a decision on the use of cypermethrin in aquaculture?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I guess our view on that is that it is not registered, and because it is not registered, use of it is not permissible.

The Chairman: Yet it is being used.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: If it is, it is being used illegally.

The Chairman: It is being used with the knowledge of the Department of Health. Isn't that so?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I cannot answer that.

The Chairman: I can answer that, and they know. So why is there no action?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I can't answer that question. I don't have any—

The Chairman: The Department of Health is fully aware that cypermethrin is being used. Now, whose responsibility is it to intervene, considering the fact that so many departments are involved? This is what this committee would like to begin to understand. Can anyone answer?

Mr. Shantora.

Mr. Vic Shantora: I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: But you should, because you are the the custodians of section 36. Shouldn't you?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Then why is there no answer to that question?

Mr. Vic Shantora: I just don't have the answer here with me today.

The Chairman: Could you provide it in writing to the members of the committee?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Yes, we will undertake to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The question I would like to ask Environment Canada has to do with point 3.128 in the commissioner's report, which reads as follows:

Environment Canada and Health Canada should forthwith reach a formal conclusion on the toxicity of the 13 substances for which they have not yet done so.

• 1700

There is quite a background to this recommendation, which perhaps I don't need to read to you at this particular moment, to save time.

Do you have an answer to that question?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Yes, sir. The work is nearing completion. We hope to have decisions out, I believe, by the end of this year.

The Chairman: Apparently, according to the commissioner, the work began in 1994. Is that correct?

Mr. Vic Shantora: In that range, yes, sir.

The Chairman: Could you explain why it took so long?

Mr. Vic Shantora: There really wasn't very much data on those particular substances in terms of their use or release in Canada, nor on whether they were found in the environment. So we undertook to do some research in some of these areas to see if we could in fact get the information that would aid our assessment. So it took time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: And what is the role of Health Canada in this process?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Environment Canada looks at the environmental side, whether there was any environmental release or impact. Health Canada looks at the human health side of the equation.

The Chairman: Have they done so?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Both sets of work are now coming to conclusion, yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll go to a second round. Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shantora, in your presentation, on page 12, under influencing the decisions of stakeholders, you mentioned aboriginal peoples and collecting and analysing country foods. I'd just like to ask you what you consider country foods to be, where the analysis has taken place, and how that analysis is dispensed to influence the decision of the stakeholders.

Mr. Vic Shantora: We work with a number of departments—Health Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—focusing primarily on the Arctic environment.

We have undertaken some of the sampling and analytical programs that have gone on up there. The databases are then provided as advice to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Health Canada, who in turn advise aboriginal peoples on the findings and the interpretation of those findings as they relate to human health.

Mr. Rick Casson: Can you give us a list of the types of country foods, or all of the country foods, that have been tested for organic pollutants?

Mr. Vic Shantora: I can't do that today, sir. We could undertake to get you that information

Mr. Rick Casson: I'd be interested in that. If you could supply that, that would be great.

You indicate also that you work with municipalities. You specifically mention Ontario. Municipal government is my background, and I know that herbicide and pesticide application is licensed and very few people can do that.

Do you scope your work with municipalities strictly on the reduction of the use? Do you analyse? Have you found spots where pesticide residue is still in the... I'm worried about playgrounds and that type of situation.

Mr. Vic Shantora: We wouldn't get into that level of monitoring. I believe that would probably be done by provincial officials. What I was referring to is that where municipalities or community groups are interested in looking for alternatives to pesticides, we've offered informational materials and that sort of thing, to either reduce or avoid the use of pesticides.

Mr. Rick Casson: So in the end, you're not responsible for environmental assessment of pesticides at all, the way they're used, or after they're used—the residual that's left. Who do we ask that question of? Where is that information? Who's collecting it?

• 1705

Mr. Vic Shantora: PMRA has that responsibility. They have a division, which I believe they described yesterday but I can't remember the exact title of it. They have people who do the actual environmental evaluations of pesticides in their registration process.

So where we undertake environmental monitoring across the country, in the Great Lakes or whatever, if there is a specific concern about a pesticide or just sort of general monitoring, we may pick up a particular program to look for a particular pesticide. We also do research. So, again, if there's a specific research initiative in a particular area of the country, then our scientists will undertake to examine for a particular substance or group of substances. DDT, mercury, and PCBs in the Arctic were one such example.

Mr. Rick Casson: So if somebody's concerned about the use of the pesticide and the possible effect it's having on something, they would have to approach PMRA to determine what exactly is causing it. We're talking about fowl and wildlife, and if we see some effect there, is it the PMRA they would go to in order to determine exactly what the cause of that is?

Mr. David Brackett (Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada): If I might, Mr. Chairman, with regard to wildlife kills or the sorts of abnormalities that may be picked up, the Canadian Wildlife Service does maintain a research program that then follows up on a selective basis, because of resourcing, some of those issues, in particular with regard to waterfowl die-offs, if those are found, or migratory birds such as songbirds. We also have a research program directed at amphibian mortality in different parts of the country. But, as I said, these are quite selective.

There is a national network set up with the four veterinary colleges in Canada called the Canadian Co-operative Wildlife Health Network, which also maintains a 1-800 number to which people can report abnormal wildlife mortality, and that can result in an investigation. As with many wildlife things, the provinces also have a role to play where the wildlife in question is other than migratory birds and, in particular, wild mammals and so on. But that's where that network, which is a creature of the provinces and territories and the federal government, can come in to help.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Charbonneau, followed by Mr. Stoffer and the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, there are several issues that I'd like to raise in connection with the Commissioner's report and the substance of Bill C-32 which was adopted in the Commons yesterday.

In the Commissioner's report, a link is established between managing toxic substances and managing pesticides. Of the 12 toxic substances slated for virtual elimination as a result of earlier studies, eight are pesticides that have been banned in Canada for years. This means that pesticides are viewed as an important component of toxic substances which in future, will need to be better managed.

In paragraph 4.49 of his report, the Commissioner notes the following:

4.49 All 12 of the Track I substances are currently subject to various management controls or bans that predate the introduction of the Toxic Substances Management Policy. So far, however, departments have not taken additional action under the policy against these substances. Rather, they have been mired in conflict over the meaning of virtual elimination [...]

• 1710

I want you to remember this comment and I would like your reaction to it.

The Commissioner goes on to say in paragraph 4.51:

[...] strategies have not been developed to prevent or minimize releases throughout the life cycle of pesticides and the majority of industrial chemicals [...] The government's stated objectives are not being achieved.

Accordingly, in paragraph 4.53, the Commissioner recommends that each component, or each department, "develop and apply strategies for life cycle management by substance, sector and/or region.

The issue of pesticides management is discussed in the chapter on managing toxic substances.

The Commissioner goes on to recommend the following in paragraph 4.119:

4.119 The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, in consultation with other federal departments, [...] should establish a risk reduction policy for managing pesticides.

The Commissioner proceeds to name these federal departments, which the three of you represent.

Enough of citing of the Commissioner's report. I'll now move on to Bill C-32 which was adopted yesterday. While there have been many problems and departments have been mired in conflict thus far over the meaning of the expression "virtual elimination", let me tell you that after the passage of the bill yesterday, the issue will be thrust even more to the forefront. We'll certainly need to find a way to resolve this conflict because this is a critical element.

The legislation adopted yesterday set us on the path to pollution prevention. Yet, I have observed, like the commissioner, that we don't have a waste management policy in place. I'd like to know what steps you're planning to take, not only to control waste, but also to implement the pollution prevention provisions in the legislation?

More specifically, is research being conducted on alternate pest management initiatives? Do you plan to contribute to pollution prevention through research and notices, in addition to tackling the waste management problem?

One of the key expressions in the bill adopted yesterday is "virtual elimination". It's a very timely subject, one that seems to have generated some discord. Consequently, I would like the three of you to explain your position and how you plan to deal with the situation. It may not be your own personal opinion, but if it is, I'd like to know that as well.

Secondly, what do you intend to do to shift the focus to prevention through pest management?

Finally, what needs to be done to improve inter-departmental cooperation, given that pursuant to the recently passed legislation, responsibility for pest management is now shared and priority consideration doesn't always go to Environment, even where aquaculture is concerned? If the Governor in Council feels that the environment is being properly managed, the Department of the Environment has no cause to intervene. These are issues that we have discussed at length.

All of which means that responsibility for environmental management is recognized as being shared by several departments. What steps do you plan to take to resolve the conflict observed by the Commissioner in order to devise a policy that combines management and prevention?

[English]

The Chairman: The reference here is to residual powers, which you are probably very familiar with. Could we have a concise answer, please? Who wants to give it a try?

• 1715

Mr. Vic Shantora: A concise answer—let me try, Mr. Chairman.

To go back and give you a bit of history, in terms of the implementation of the toxic substances management policy, certainly there was a lot of discourse between departments on virtual elimination, what it meant and how it ought to be interpreted. I think in large measure it got bogged down because Bill C-32 was going through the House and there was some debate about the definition even within the bill itself. So those discussions did get bogged down.

I was hoping I was going to answer the honourable member's question by simply saying that now that CEPA is passed, there is a definition and that allows us to move forward. I'm still hopeful that's the case.

With regard to pollution prevention strategies, we are taking a number of initiatives to make them operational under the new CEPA. Pollution prevention is a framework for our actions. The Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention was established a number of years ago. It's acting as a clearing house for information on pollution prevention. We've done a number of other Internet-related initiatives particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises to help them understand how they can use pollution prevention. It is a reality that pollution prevention pays. It can be very cost effective in terms of not only your environment protected but also the pocketbook. So there are those initiatives going on.

In the international forum there's a lot of work on clean technologies, in other words, thinking about the technology itself rather than the end of the pipe as the ultimate solution, and that is ongoing.

I believe the commitment the deputy ministers gave in response to the environment commissioner's report was that an interdepartmental committee of deputies would be looking at preparing a response and an action plan to the various items. I believe the various sustainable development strategies of the departments can be used to upgrade and reflect the pollution prevention requirements that are in the act and the virtual elimination requirements.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Would someone care to comment further?

[English]

Are there any other comments, Mr. Swanson, Dr. Winget?

[Translation]

Mr. Carl Winget: I don't have a great deal to add to what Mr. Shantora said. However, regarding the use of pesticides in forested areas, there aren't many old pesticides included in the list of those in use today, particular since the predominant substance used today is Bt which, in recent years, has been reassessed from a health standpoint. Most of the other pesticides in use are relatively new substances and therefore, their use poses different problems.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like to hear what DFO representatives have to say about this, given that this department shares responsibility for environmental management, for aquaculture issues and so forth, from the standpoint of sustainable development and pollution prevention.

I'm interesting in finding out what measures DFO is taking, or intends to take, because you mentioned a research program under way that contributes to pollution prevention and fosters a spirit of co-operation. Perhaps there is a way out of these discussions that have been dragging on for years and years.

Judging from Mr. Shantora's answer, I understand that problems arose because the definition of "virtual elimination" hadn't yet been agreed on. Some discussions took place. I understood that part. Yesterday, a vote was held. The issue is now clear, at least on paper. I hope things are equally clear to all those who advised us to pass this legislation.

I'd like to know at this time how DFO plans to contribute to the goal of pollution prevention and what collaborative effort we can expect from the department so that some problems can be resolved.

[English]

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

• 1720

With respect to management of toxic substances, we are, and will continue to be, a member of the interdepartmental forum dealing with this issue, and will provide technical advice on this issue through that. We perform research on toxic substances that can be used by ourselves and other agencies that apply TSMP in regulatory mandates. We also establish priorities for research, based upon needs that are developed and influenced through the priority substance list and the TSMP.

In terms of the kinds of research we are currently engaged in, there are a number that might be worth mentioning. In our Maritimes region, Dr. Haya is conducting research on ivermectin to determine the environmental impact of chemicals produced by the salmonid aquaculture industry—that type of industry. In the Newfoundland region, Dr. Banoub is evaluating the risks of the pesticides azamethiphos and cypermethrin to aquatic organisms. Again in the Maritimes, another scientist, Dr. Page, is doing some modelling work with respect to these pesticides.

On the regulation of the aquaculture industry and our particular role in that, I believe the commissioner of aquaculture appeared before the committee a number of weeks ago. Since that time the department has indicated he will be conducting a review of the legal framework surrounding the aquaculture industry. The review will include an examination of federal and provincial acts and regulations and other regulatory tools that apply to aquaculture. An important objective of this review is to ensure there's a proper regulatory framework in place to provide safeguards to the environment. That's specifically provided for in the terms of reference of that review.

In keeping with our commitment made in the federal aquaculture development strategy, consultations are being undertaken with the aquaculture industry, the public, and stakeholders to identify the need for a new federal aquaculture development program. This is a gap analysis and will address sustainable development in the aquaculture industry.

Additionally, the department is establishing an aquaculture policy advisory committee that will examine, in consultation with other agencies, the use of pesticides and therapeutants in the context of sustainable aquaculture.

Overlaying all that is our minister's responsibility for protection of the wild fishery, under the Fisheries Act. That, of course, will be a key in whatever outcomes are produced from the review I've just talked about.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Would you mind including the chair in your thunders? We'd appreciate it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Casson will be interested to know this. The Lethbridge Herald last spring reported that herbicide rain was occurring and it could have significant environmental impacts on the area. Are you aware of this? If so, did any department do anything about this? Just a yes or no, maybe, looking into it...

Mr. Vic Shantora: I am not aware of that. I think we can undertake to get you that information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. That would be great, sir.

Mr. Swanson has indicated that the mandate of fisheries is the protection of fish stocks. If a fish farm were to go into a pristine area, for example, in Nova Scotia, where lobster fishing and scallop fishing were going on right now, would that farm have to undergo an environmental assessment before they put their nets in the water?

• 1725

Mr. Gerry Swanson: My personal view is that the establishment of that type of activity is caught by the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and should be subject to review under that act, provided the necessary regulatory triggers are there. From our point of view, those regulatory triggers would mean that the establishment of that operation entailed either a destruction of fish habitat, which would require an authorization under section 35 of the Fisheries Act, or that there would be a requirement for a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I say that is because the Scotia Rainbow group, which I had mentioned earlier, was basically kicked out of Heney Lake in Quebec for environmental concerns and damages they had done—it was reported that way. The Scotia Rainbow group, which, by the way, also contributes to the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia—surprise, surprise—now states in a quote with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Nova Scotia that they don't need to have an environmental impact study for these fish farms in the area of Whitehead.

We already know that Scotia farms will be using pesticides, antibiotics, all kinds of chemicals in open-net systems. We know they float around in the water. We know they cause damage to other stocks—fish stocks and everything else.

My question again, sir, is would you not agree that this farm or any farms of that nature would have to undergo an environmental assessment before they're placed in there?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'm not sure what I can add to my previous response. I'm not aware of the particular case you refer to. Environmental assessments are triggered if certain conditions are present. From our own point of view, under the terms of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that would have to involve a regulatory decision on our behalf that I've already described.

There are other conditions that trigger federal environmental assessments. I haven't brought that particular legislation with me. For example, if the federal government were contributing money to finance these, that is another possibility. But again, I do not know the details of the case.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, your questions would have to be addressed to CEAA, which is not present today. But go ahead with your last question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My very last question is for Mr. Brackett, and the reason I ask him is because he has a very nice pin.

I've asked the other gentlemen and I've said to you before, Mr. Brackett, in your opinion, was it better before, or is it better now with PMRA?

Mr. David Brackett: As Dr. Shantora said, it's hard to say, when we've not had a static situation and things have changed. It is different.

Certainly our access to information with respect to registration is something on which we look forward to seeing amendments in the Pest Control Products Act, which will improve access to information to make it perhaps a little easier for the Canadian Wildlife Service to assess impacts on migratory birds.

Now, as has been said earlier, Environment Canada is not a part of the decision-making process but is in advice to the decision-making process. So that's different. It's not a question of better or worse.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I have a couple more questions again.

Mr. Swanson, going back to irrigation canals and a question that was dealt with earlier, when it comes to the use of the herbicide acrolein, which apparently has turned out to be damaging in irrigation canals because it kills fish, basically, do you agree with the decision of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency?

• 1730

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Our view is that irrigation canals can be covered by the Fisheries Act. In order for them to be covered by the Fisheries Act there would have to be fish in them, of course, and there would have to be a fishery or some link to a fishery. I understand that in Alberta there are certain irrigation canals where significant fisheries do occur.

The other part of this, of course, is the question as to whether or not acrolein is or is not deleterious to fish. Our understanding is that it is, in spades. Therefore, unless some accommodation is made between the Fisheries Act—such as a regulation that I referred to earlier—and the pesticide legislation, there are legal difficulties with respect to the use of that particular pesticide.

The Chairman: Therefore your department does not agree with the decision of PMRA?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Therefore we're trying to resolve that issue with the PMRA and the Department of the Environment, yes.

The Chairman: Therefore you do not agree with PMRA?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I have read the statements Dr. Franklin made yesterday before the committee in terms of whether the Fisheries Act applies or does not apply, and I do not share that view.

The Chairman: Fine. Are there any other substances on which there is a difference of opinion between your department and PMRA?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: There are none that we can recall off the tops of our heads. There has been this discussion that has been going on with respect to acrolein. We talked about cypermethrin earlier, and we have given our opinion on that. At this point in time, the agency has not registered that particular pesticide for use, so at this point in time there does not appear to be an issue with respect to that particular pesticide.

The Chairman: But cypermethrin is being used right now, to your knowledge?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Well, not to my knowledge, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Swanson.

Mr. Shantora, would you like to comment on recommendation 4.54 in the commissioner's report, which reads:

Federal departments, including Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada, should each develop a plan for implementing the Toxic Substances Management Policy.

I would also like to hear your comments, Mr. Swanson.

Mr. Vic Shantora: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, your question was do we agree with that recommendation?

The Chairman: Would you like to comment on that recommendation?

Mr. Vic Shantora: In my view, we would support that recommendation. I think that's a good one.

The Chairman: Could we have a comment from Dr. Winget, because it includes Natural Resources Canada.

Dr. Carl Winget: Equally, Natural Resources Canada agrees with that regulation.

The Chairman: It's not a regulation; it is a recommendation.

Dr. Carl Winget: Excuse me, that recommendation.

The Chairman: And Mr. Swanson?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We don't have any difficulty with that. We'll work with the other agencies towards that end.

The Chairman: And where should the initiative rest?

Mr. Vic Shantora: We have an interdepartmental working group, and I think that initiative would probably land there for follow-up action. It's called the TSMP interdepartmental forum.

The Chairman: The recommendation refers to each developing a plan for implementing. Has Natural Resources implemented its plan?

Dr. Carl Winget: I would refer that question to a colleague of mine who is far more aware of the broad implications of this.

The Chairman: And has Fisheries and Oceans implemented its plan? We'd need only a very short answer.

Mr. Richard A. Arseneault (Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Assets Management and Administrative Services Branch, Corporate Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada): Mr. Chairman, at Natural Resources Canada, yes, we are in the process of developing an action plan. We don't have one presently.

The Chairman: So you have not implemented the plan; you are developing the plan, are you?

Mr. Richard Arseneault: We are developing a plan that will include a number of initiatives that are already under way in the department. We are also a member of the interdepartmental forum on the toxic substances management policy.

The Chairman: And when will that plan be ready?

• 1735

Mr. Richard Arseneault: We are planning to get our plan ready in time for the senior management ADM-level committee that will approve the interdepartmental action plan. We will have our own action plan in place by that time.

The Chairman: When is that time?

Mr. Richard Arseneault: The fall of 1999.

The Chairman: Would you mind putting your name on the record, please?

Mr. Richard Arseneault: My name is Richard Arseneault. I'm the director of the Office of Environmental Affairs at Natural Resources Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Swanson, when is your plan going to be implemented?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We are developing the plan. I have no particular date as to when that plan will be ready.

The Chairman: Could you indicate to this committee in writing, perhaps in a few days, as to what your forecast is about the plan and its implementation?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Certainly. We'll attempt to do that.

The Chairman: Very briefly, two more questions and then we'll adjourn.

Recommendation 4.127 urges Fisheries and Oceans, together with Environment Canada and PMRA, to develop a policy on sustainable aquaculture. Could you give an idea as to where that policy is at the present time?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Perhaps I could address that issue. I believe this is the task that has been assigned to the aquaculture commissioner that I referred to early. That has recently been announced, and consultations and that review are now getting under way.

The Chairman: Will you supply this committee with an idea as to what the timetable might be?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Certainly. I will consult with my colleagues in the department and with the commissioner's office who have that responsibility to provide details.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Finally, recommendation 4.134 addresses Environment Canada. It reads:

Environment Canada should ensure that releases of priority toxic substances are reliably monitored and reported through either the National Pollutant Release Inventory or other means...

Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Yes. We are in fact beefing up the national pollutant release inventory. I can't recall the figures exactly, but a number of toxic substances have been added to that recently. We will undertake that as more substances are declared toxic under CEPA we will have them reported under that mechanism.

The Chairman: Would you mind indicating to this committee by way of a letter what your plan is in implementing this recommendation?

Mr. Vic Shantora: Sure.

The Chairman: It's now time for us to adjourn. There are other items that we want to...

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just for the people here and the people watching and all of our friends here, what makes Parliament Hill so great is the staff and the people behind the scenes. I just wanted to say we have a very lovely woman behind us who has been here nine years on the Hill, and she is leaving us to go off and get married. This is her last day. I just want to say to Christine Labelle, all the very best and congratulations to you.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer, for that very thoughtful intervention.

Are there any other announcements of the same nature? If not, this meeting stands adjourned. Thank you.