ENVI Committee Report

13.    INFORMING AND INVOLVING THE CANADIAN PUBLIC

---

13.1    The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development remarked in his 1999 report that the PMRA had gained the reputation of being a "closed shop."²²⁵ This characterization was echoed by witnesses before the Committee. The Canadian Manufacturers of Chemical Specialities Association, for example, stated that "because of the 'closed shop' approach of the PMRA, we all have been left in the dark as to what the Agency is doing."²²⁶ While this comment was made specifically in reference to the PMRA's ever-changing policy on the re-evaluation of older pesticides, the Committee is satisfied, based on the evidence before it, that this criticism is generally applicable. We agree with the observations of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, which indicates:

13.2    The Committee wishes to underline the importance of having an open and transparent process. Increasingly, the safety of pesticides is being called into question. In order to foster public confidence in the regulatory system, it is crucial that Canadians be fully informed about decisions affecting their health and their environment. They must also be given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. A first step towards achieving these goals is to provide the public with detailed information on pesticides.

The Disclosure of Information

13.3    One of the major concerns raised by witnesses was the lack of public information on pesticides. Many witnesses complained that information was simply not available, whether it be in relation to active ingredients, formulants or test data. Ironically, some pesticide information which is not released in Canada is making its way into this country through public disclosure in the US. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, indicated to the Committee that the information on the hazards posed by pesticides was protected as confidential business information in Canada. "This is especially silly," it added, "since the same data are freely available in the US."²²⁸

13.4    The problem in Canada stems from the fact there is no authority under the Pest Control Products Act to allow disclosure to the public of any information whatsoever. Because the Act is silent on this issue, the provisions of the Access to Information Act are applicable. This legislation, however, is quite restrictive. It requires that a request for information be made in writing to the appropriate authority (section 6). Public access is thus not contemplated as a matter of course; a written request must first be made. Even when the request is made, the applicant may not be given the sought-after information due to restrictions under the Act. The most important restrictions for the purposes of this discussion are set out in the exemption in section 20(1). This exemption requires a government institution, such as the PMRA, to refuse disclosure of any record that contains:

• trade secrets of a third party;
• financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by that party;
• information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a third party; or
• information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party.

13.5    It should be noted that the term "trade secrets" usually refers to the formula and the process used to produce a product such as a pesticide. Trade secrets, however, are frequently lumped in with other business information considered confidential by the person who owns the information, and, together, are generically termed "confidential business information."

13.6    By reason of the restrictions in section 20(1) of the Access to Information Act, the PMRA is thus unable to release "confidential business information." There is, however, a "public interest override" clause in section 20(6) that, in appropriate cases, could lead to the disclosure of the confidential business information otherwise protected under section 20(1). This override clause permits disclosure of information if the "disclosure would be in the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment and, if the public interest in the disclosure clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain to, prejudice to the competitive position of or interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party."

13.7    A review of the jurisprudence on section 20(6) failed to disclose any cases where the public interest override had been invoked. It would therefore seem to be an under-utilized provision. It must be remembered, however, that the override clause is an exception to the general non-disclosure rule in section 20(1) and, as such, would have to be successfully invoked before the sought-after information could be released.

13.8    Given the restrictions under the Access to Information Act, the PMRA has indicated that its hands are tied in terms of disclosing confidential business information to the public. During her appearance before the Committee, however, Dr. Franklin stated that the PMRA was attempting to make information available for new active ingredients and major new uses regarding products being registered by obtaining the applicant's consent to disclosure. She also pointed out that public access to information would be improved under the forthcoming legislation.²²⁹

13.9    The Committee has reviewed the amendments recommended by the PMRA in its January 1999 document (see insert). We are particularly encouraged to see that information on pesticides, including confidential business information, would be made available to health care professionals and other government departments in specified circumstances. The Committee heard about the difficulties and frustrations experienced by some individuals in trying to obtain adequate information on pesticides in order to make a medical diagnosis or identify the cause of significant fish kills. It is high time that the paramount interests of those who are on the front lines in combating human illness and environmental harm be placed above the business interests of the pesticide manufacturers.

Public Access to Information: the PMRA's Proposed Amendments As regards major registration decisions made after the new Act was in force, the PMRA proposes that the new Act allow members of the public to inspect confidential information, including test data, but excluding confidential business information, provided they did not intend to use the information to register a product in Canada or elsewhere. Members of the public would also be allowed to obtain copies of evaluation reports, including the confidential information contained in them, but excluding confidential business information. The definition of "confidential business information" would be set out in the regulations to allow modifications to be made as public policy evolved. It could comprise: manufacturing or quality control processes relating to pest control products; methods for determining the formulation of the product, including the identity or concentration of its components; and the identity or concentration of the product's components, other than active ingredients, unless disclosure was otherwise expressly required under the new Act or any other Act. In addition, the new Act would allow the disclosure in confidence of information, including confidential business information, in specified circumstances. For example: to a physician for the purpose of making a medical diagnosis, to another government department to respond to a situation that endangers health or the environment, or to another regulatory authority with whom an agreement has been signed regarding the exchange of information about pest control products. Persons privy to confidential information would be required to take appropriate measures to prevent its disclosure. (Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Proposed Amendments to the Pest Control Products Act, January 1999, p. 17.)

13.10    While the proposed amendments would constitute an improvement over the status quo, they do not go nearly far enough. The Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Ontario College of Family Physicians, for example, recommended that the PMRA disclose all pest control product ingredients, as well as provide access to all information upon which registration and other regulatory decisions are based.²³⁰ The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada pointed out that the PMRA does not publish in the Regulations its health data test requirements in relation to pesticides, thus making it difficult for the public to access a concise and readable list of such requirements.²³¹ This Association, as well as many other witnesses, was particularly concerned about the lack of information on toxic formulants. It recommended that the identity of toxic formulants should be excluded from the confidential business information designation and that the PMRA should require labelling for pesticides that contain hazardous ingredients, as is done in the US.²³²

13.11    Since 1987, it has been the policy of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require special labelling for pesticides containing a "List 1" inert (an "inert" is the US equivalent of "formulant"). A "List 1" inert is an inert that is of toxicological concern based on carcinogenicity, adverse reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, other chronic effects, developmental toxicity, ecological effects and the potential for bioaccumulation. In the US, a pesticide containing a "List 1" inert must have on its label a statement that it contains a toxic inert, and the inert must be identified by name.²³³

13.12    The PMRA is now also requiring special labelling for toxic formulants. It informed the Committee that for new products containing toxic formulants on the EPA's Inerts List 1, the name of the List 1 formulant and the percentage at which it is present must be inscribed on the label, as must the following statement:

13.13    Active ingredients and formulants are not the only substances contained in pesticides that might be of concern because of their toxicity. Contaminants and micro-contaminants may also be of concern. The Committee learned, for example, that the PMRA granted a time-limited registration in relation to the pesticide "fenhexamid" on May 1, 1999 and that it was proposing to register the pesticide "hexaconazole." Both of these pesticides contain furans as microcontaminants. Furans have been designated as a Track 1 substance under the federal Toxic Substances Management Policy (discussed in Chapter 9).

13.14    The Committee is seriously concerned that pesticides containing any Track 1 substance, however minute the quantity, might be registered for use in Canada, and we have recommended in Chapter 9 that these products not be registered. On the other hand, we believe it essential that all toxic ingredients contained in a pesticide be identified on the product label, not unlike what is done in the US regarding the labelling of List 1 Inerts.

13.15    Although the Committee favours the broadest possible policy regarding public access to information, we are aware that there are constraints that might place limits on disclosure. Article 1711.1 of the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, places restrictions on the disclosure of "trade secrets," while Article 1711.5 places restrictions on the disclosure of safety and effectiveness data submitted in support of an application to register an "agricultural chemical product" that utilizes new chemical entities. Article 39.3 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), concluded under the World Trade Organization Agreement, contains a similar provision restricting the disclosure of safety and effectiveness data respecting agricultural chemical products. The Committee appreciates that the Canadian government must act within these confines. We note, however, that the US is also a party to these agreements and is therefore also bound by these restrictions, yet its disclosure policy is far more open than Canada's.

13.16    In the US, there is a general rule of non-disclosure in relation to information that has been clearly marked as a trade secret or commercial or financial information. However, there are exceptions to this rule, notably the requirement that the following information be made available for disclosure to the public:

• all information concerning the objectives, methodology, results or significance of any test or experiment performed on or with a registered or previously registered pesticide or its separate ingredients, impurities, or degradation products;
• any information concerning the effects of such pesticide on any organism or the behaviour of such pesticide in the environment, including, but not limited to, data on safety to fish and wildlife, humans and other mammals, plants, animals, and soil; and
• studies on persistence, translocation and fate in the environment, and metabolism.²³⁵

13.17    The Committee also notes the approach taken under the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). This Act essentially calls for the disclosure of selected information unless a claim of confidentiality is made and substantiated on specified grounds. Specifically, sections 46 to 53 of the new Act provide that, where information is requested by the Minister and the Minister indicates that it might be published, the respondent must request in writing that the information be treated with confidentiality. Confidentiality, however, may only be claimed on specified grounds, for example, where the information is a trade secret or its disclosure would likely adversely affect the respondent's financial or competitive position. If the Minister is satisfied that the respondent's claim is well-founded, he or she may accept the request. The Minister, however, has an overriding discretion to reject a well-founded claim where disclosure is in the interest of protecting the environment or public health or safety and where the public interest in the disclosure outweighs any adverse affects to the respondent's financial or competitive position.

13.18    Except for the fact that these provisions apply only to information that the Minister indicates might be published, the Committee sees merit in the approach taken. It requires that the submitter first flag the information for which confidentiality is claimed. It then provides for such claims to be sustained only if the information meets the prescribed criteria for confidentiality, subject to an overriding discretion to disclose the information where the public interest outweighs that of the claimant.

13.19    This approach, in the Committee's opinion, would work well with respect to the pesticides information held by the PMRA. It is important, however, that the criteria for confidentiality be narrowly defined. We also believe that, like the US legislation, there should be a non-exhaustive list of the information that could not be withheld on grounds of confidentiality.

 

An Electronic Public Registry of Information

13.20    Given the importance of ensuring public access to information, the Committee believes it is essential that an electronic public registry containing a broad range of pesticide related information be created under the new Act.

13.21    The PMRA recommended in its January 1999 document²³⁶ that the new Act require the establishment of a register, that would include the following information:

• conditions of registration and validity period for all registered products;
• reports of evaluations of risks and value;
• test data provided by applicants and registrants to support registration applications, re-evaluations, specials reviews, and maximum residue limits; and
• advisory council reports.

13.22    The PMRA also recommended that the new Act contain regulatory authority to allow the inclusion in the Register of additional information, such as:

• the registration status of all registered and formerly registered products;
• maximum residue limits;
• basic information about applications, date of receipt and projected decision date;
• additional information considered in making registration decisions;
• consultation documents (PRDDs) and decisions documents;
• notices and reports of additional studies;
• reports and findings regarding adverse effects;
• requests for special reviews, with related decision and reasons;
• notices regarding re-evaluations, special reviews, consultations, and export permits;
• notices of objection and the Minister's decision and reasons;
• information submitted to review panels regarding the product in question, review panel reports and subsequent decisions; and
• export, research, own-use import and other permits.

13.23    The PMRA indicated, however, that only some of the information in the register would be publicly available, namely the information it proposed should be disclosed to the public. As mentioned in the previous section entitled "Disclosure of Information," this information would comprise "confidential information" (which the PMRA did not define), including test data and evaluation reports, but excluding "confidential business information" (which was also not defined). It further specified that the public would be allowed to "inspect" this information, suggesting something less than electronic access.

13.24    In the Committee's opinion, the PMRA's proposal is too limited. Subject to the narrow exception for confidential business information that we recommended be enacted in the previous section and subject to any restrictions regarding access to information imposed under the international agreements to which Canada is a party (e.g. NAFTA and the WTO), the public should have access to all relevant information, and such information should be accessible through an electronic registry. Information should be made available not only in relation to the pesticide approval process, but also in relation to enforcement action taken under the Act and other activities undertaken by the PMRA.

Annual Report to Parliament

13.25    There is currently no obligation on the PMRA or the Minister of Health to prepare and table before Parliament an annual report on the administration and enforcement of the Pest Control Products Act. In the Committee's opinion, it would be desirable to have such a document to complement the more detailed information that would be available on the electronic public registry.

13.26    An annual report would provide members of the public, as well as Parliamentarians, with a useful digest of the activities carried out under the new Act. Not everyone will have the time or the tools at hand to consult the electronic public registry on a regular basis. It is thus important to make available an alternative, condensed source of information. An annual report would also provide a permanent "fixed-in-time" record of the PMRA and Minister's actions, which would allow for comparison to be made from one year to the next, as well as for assessment of administrative successes, weaknesses and failures.

13.27    The Committee notes that annual reports are required in relation to many statutes. The Minister of the Environment, for example, must prepare and table in Parliament an annual report in relation to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The Minister of Health is also required to do so in relation to the Canada Health Act. Given the serious concern surrounding the use of pesticides in this country, including the current process for approving their use, the Committee believes it is essential that an annual report be prepared to inform Parliamentarians and the public at large on new developments under the Act.

Participation in the Decision-Making Process

13.28    Keeping Canadians informed about the decisions that affect them is an essential first step in fostering public confidence in the regulatory system. A vital second step is to ensure that the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

13.29    The current Act is silent on the role of the public in the registration process. The regulations, in turn, allow for appeal, but only where the Minister refuses to register or amend a certificate of registration or where the Minister cancels or suspends the registration (section 22 of the current Pest Control Products Regulations). There is, however, no appeals process for decisions to register a pesticide, or to renew or maintain a certificate of registration. There are also no requirements for public consultation under the current Act or Regulations. Thus, to the extent that public consultations have taken place, these have been carried out on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis.

13.30    The PMRA proposes opening up the process somewhat. It recommends that before a final registration decision is made, the public be consulted on new active ingredients, changes that might result in significantly increased risk, re-evaluations and special reviews. The PMRA also recommends that the procedures for carrying out the consultations be specified in the regulations, which could include the following measures: notification to the public that a final major decision was pending, publication of the Proposed Regulatory Decision Document (PRDD), an opportunity for public comment on proposed decisions, provisions regarding the contents of the PRDDs, timelines for consultation, consideration of any comments made prior to making a final decision, publication of a decision statement including the final decision, the reasons for the decision and a summary of the comments received, and exemptions from the provisions regarding public consultation. The PMRA also proposes to give members of the public the opportunity to challenge a decision by filing a notice of objection and requesting the establishment of a review panel.²³⁷

13.31    The Committee supports the proposed amendments in principle. These recommended changes would constitute a marked improvement over what is prescribed at present which, as previously indicated, is next to nothing. In our opinion, however, it is essential that these measures be set out in the new Act rather than the Regulations. Provisions regarding the right of Canadians to receive notice, to comment on and to appeal decisions that might materially affect them are too fundamental to be relegated to the regulations, where they might be readily changed at the discretion of the Governor in Council. Given the importance of having an open and transparent process, it is imperative that such measures be enshrined in the legislation following consideration and approval by Parliament. The Committee also believes that the notice and comment provisions should be extended to all pesticide registrations, and not just to those involving new active ingredients. In addition, the public should be given the opportunity to comment on all proposed regulations, policies, memoranda of understanding, agreements, guidelines and codes of practice. They should also be entitled to receive some feedback on how their comments were taken into consideration. This requirement would be distinct from, and in addition to, the obligation for the PMRA to establish a direct feedback mechanism regarding the submission of scientific research, which we recommended be established in Chapter 8.

Pesticide Sales and Use Inventories

13.32    In his 1999 report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was highly critical of the PMRA's failure to establish a national database respecting pesticide sales. He noted that of the 22 countries responding to an OECD survey, only Canada and the Slovak Republic did not collect such data. The Commissioner expressed concern that, without such data, Canada had no ability to measure amounts of pesticides used and released into the environment. This information, he added, was needed to monitor risks to health, safety and the environment and to measure the extent to which lower-risk pesticides and non-pesticide alternatives were being adopted.²³⁸

13.33    Many witnesses shared the concern of the Commissioner. Some progress, however, is being made. During her appearance on June 1, 1999, Dr. Franklin of the PMRA indicated that a national database on pesticide sales should be fully operational by the end of 2000. She expected that 2001 would be the first year for the comprehensive collection of national pesticide sales data.²³⁹

13.34    The Committee supports this initiative; it is long overdue. We note with interest that the authority for such a database has been in existence for some time: section 26 of the current Pest Control Products Regulations requires registrants to make and keep for up to three years a record of all quantities of pesticides stored, manufactured or sold by them. They are also required, upon request, to make such data available, albeit to the Director General of the Plant Industry Directorate within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Given the reference to this official, it is obvious that the Regulations were not updated when the PMRA took over in 1995. We were informed by an official with Environment Canada that his Department along with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada used to track sales prior to 1995, but with the creation of the PMRA, the responsibility was moved to that agency.²⁴⁰

13.35    The Committee is very concerned that this program was dropped when the PMRA was formed. It is time that it be reactivated. We would enhance the current regulation, however, by requiring that sales data not only be kept and supplied on request, but that the collection and transmittal of the data to the PMRA on an ongoing basis be made a specific condition of registration.

13.36    Like the Crop Protection Institute, however, the Committee questions the utility of having a database on pesticide sales only. As the Institute pointed out, a correlation between sales and use cannot readily be made:

13.37    It should be noted that data on pesticide use is being collected on a more local level. The World Wildlife Fund indicated, for example, that the province of Ontario conducts surveys about every five years on agricultural pesticide usage, which provide detailed data on a county-by-county and crop-by-crop basis. The province of Quebec carries out surveys on certain crops, including corn-soybean rotation. Prince Edward Island also does some data collection, while Alberta does a survey of pesticide distributors to try to assess volume. As the World Wildlife Fund points out, it is "a bit of a hodgepodge" in Canada. The system in California, by contrast, is very extensive and requires reporting from users, distributors and manufacturers.²⁴²

13.38    The Committee understands that the pesticide use reporting system in California is among the most comprehensive in the world. Inaugurated in the 1950's and expanded over the decades, this system currently imposes reporting requirements on agricultural pest control operators and "commercial pest control operators" (i.e. those engaged in the business of pest control for hire, such as ground and aerial applicators, structural operators and professional gardeners). The reporting requirements also apply in relation to all "agricultural uses," a term broadly defined to include pesticide applications to parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-way. All post-harvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities must also be reported, as must all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production as well as livestock applications. The primary exceptions to the full use reporting requirements are home and garden use, and most industrial and institutional uses.²⁴³

13.39    There is little doubt that collecting data on pesticide use, as opposed to pesticide sales, would be advantageous. Information on use would best enable the PMRA and other government agencies to determine the extent of pesticide use, as well as the rate of compliance with the directions for use. Such information would also be useful in determining whether risk reduction and integrated pest management strategies are working. Most importantly, data on usage would be instrumental in regarding connections between exposure and harm to human health and the environment. A number of witnesses called for the creation of a database on pesticide use. The Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Ontario College of Family Physicians for example, were of this opinion. They stated:

13.40    The Committee notes that Environment Canada has been collecting data on the release of selected pollutants since 1993 under a program called the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). This program, which is mandatory under section 48 of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, is geared primarily toward tracking industrial pollutants. It does not generally track pesticides. In fact, it expressly excludes from its ambit the growing, harvesting and renewable resources management (forestry, fisheries and agriculture) sectors.

13.41    In the opinion of the Committee, there is as much justification and urgency for the creation of a country-wide database on pesticide use as there was for creating a national database on industrial pollutants in 1993. We recognize, however, that setting up a comprehensive database on pesticide use, collecting the related data, and ensuring compliance would represent a massive and costly undertaking. While we would vastly prefer to recommend the creation of a broad-based use inventory similar to the California model, we feel compelled at this time to propose a more modest system. It would constitute an important beginning, however, and the system could be expanded over the years, though hopefully not the forty years it took California to put in place the comprehensive system it is noted for today.

13.42    Drawing from the NPRI model, the Committee proposes the creation of a pesticide use inventory that would begin by targeting the pesticides of greatest concern, be it because of their suspected effects on vulnerable populations, the prevalence of their use across the country or their proven or suspected toxic effects in general. As is done in relation to the NPRI, the selection of the pesticides covered under the database should be selected by an advisory body. In our opinion the Pest Management Advisory Council, set up in 1998 to advise the Minister of Health on pest management issues, would be well suited to this task given its broad-based membership with representatives from the health, environmental, consumer, academic, horticultural, agricultural and pesticide-manufacturing sectors.

Whistleblower Protection

13.43    The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development observed that the PMRA has only a limited enforcement staff to verify compliance with the Act and Regulations. The Agency has the equivalent of 44 officers to inspect farms, food processing plants, commercial application facilities, retail outlets, pesticide registrants and formulators, lawn care companies and so on throughout Canada.²⁴⁵

13.44    Given the PMRA's scarce resources and the magnitude of the task at hand, it is important to involve the community in ensuring that the law is observed. Members of the public and workers are well placed to provide assistance, but they must not be placed at risk for coming forward. Meaningful whistleblower protection must be extended to them.

13.45    The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA 1999) extends such protection. Section 16, for example, encourages members of the public to make voluntary reports by protecting their identity if they request anonymity.²⁴⁶ Specifically, it is an offence under section 16(3) of the new CEPA for anyone to disclose or cause to be disclosed the whistleblower's identity, or any information that could reasonably be expected to reveal his or her identity, where anonymity has been requested unless the whistleblower expressly authorizes the disclosure in writing. Workers may also claim anonymity, but they are given added protection under section 16(4); their employer is prohibited from dismissing, suspending, demoting, disciplining, harassing or otherwise disadvantaging them should they blow the whistle or refuse to do anything that would be an offence under the Act. This workplace protection extends to all employees in Canada and not only those who fall under federal jurisdiction.

13.46    In the opinion of the Committee, similar whistleblower protection should be afforded to Canadians under the new Act. We believe, however, that the protection against reprisal should be extended to all whistleblowers and not just employees. Technically, whistleblowers may not always be "employees." For example, they may be employed by another firm that is doing business with the alleged offender, or they may be self-employed persons working for the alleged offender under a contract of service. Because these persons might not qualify as "employees," they might be at risk of reprisal. For example a contract, which would otherwise have been renewed, might not be renewed because of the whistleblowing, or the whistleblower may not be considered for future contracts. As "non-employees," however, these persons would be unable to invoke the Act's protection against retaliatory action.

13.47    The objective of whistleblower protection is to encourage people to make voluntary reports of offences that have been committed or that are about to be committed. In meeting this objective, it is important that as broad a safety net as possible be cast. In the Committee's opinion, the protection afforded against reprisal should not turn on the whistleblower's employment status. Rather, it should turn on whether or not the whistleblower has been, or is at risk of being, disadvantaged because of the disclosure. Obviously, if the protection afforded under the legislation were strictly related to the workplace, such as requiring the reinstatement of a dismissed employee, the Committee could not recommend extending protection to non-workplace environments. Under the CEPA model, however, the protection afforded is prohibitory in nature; it is an offence for an employer to take retaliatory action against a whistleblowing employee. Given the nature of the protection, the Committee believes that it would be appropriate to extend this type of prohibition to the non- employment context as well.

---

²²⁵ Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter 3, 1999.

²²⁶ Canadian Manufacturers of Chemical Specialties Association, Brief to the Committee.

²²⁷ Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, Brief to the Committee.

²²⁸ World Wildlife Fund, Brief to the Committee.

²²⁹ Evidence, Meeting No. 126, June 1, 1999.

²³⁰ Canadian Environmental Law Association and Ontario College of Family Physicians, Brief to the Committee.

²³¹ Correspondence to the Committee by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada , March 2, 2000.

²³² Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Brief to the Committee.

²³³ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Web site, Office of Pesticide Programs, Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products: Policy Statement.

²³⁴ Correspondence to the Committee, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, January 24, 2000.

²³⁵ United States Code, Title 7, Chapter 6 , section 136h(d).

²³⁶ Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Proposed Amendments to the Pest Control Products Act, January 1999, p. 16.

²³⁷ Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Proposed Amendments to the Pest Control Products Act, January 1999, p. 18-20.

²³⁸ Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter 4, 1999.

²³⁹ Evidence, Meeting No. 126, June 1, 1999.

²⁴⁰ Evidence, Meeting No. 127, June 2, 1999.

²⁴¹ Crop Protection Institute, Brief to the Committee.

²⁴² Evidence, Meeting No. 129, June 10, 1999.

²⁴³ California Environmental Protection Agency, Web site, Pesticide Use Reporting, An Overview of California's Unique Full Reporting System, January 2000.

²⁴⁴ Canadian Environmental Law Association and Ontario College of Family Physicians, Brief to the Committee.

²⁴⁵ Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter 4, 1999.

²⁴⁶ Whistleblower protection is also provided under sections 96, 202 and 213 of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.