HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

Â

1210

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

The Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health)

Â

1215

Â

1220

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Â

1230

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Anne McLellan

Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

Â

1235

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Â

1240

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Â

1245

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Anne McLellan

Dr. Claire Franklin

Â

1250

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Â

1255

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Dr. Claire Franklin

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

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

Ms. Anne McLellan

·

1300

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC)

·

1305

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Anne McLellan

·

1310

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

·

1315

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Ms. Anne McLellan

·

1320

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Ms. Anne McLellan

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Ms. Anne McLellan

·

1325

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Anne McLellan

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Anne McLellan

·

1330

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Anne McLellan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 066

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

  (1210)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    We'll resume part two of this meeting and welcome our minister, the Honourable Anne McLellan.

    I will remind you all that the reason we're here is based on the order of reference, that Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

    Accordingly, the bill was read the second time and referred to this committee, so this will be our first meeting on this subject matter. I welcome the minister and we welcome the bill, and we invite her to make her initial comments on it.

    Minister McLellan.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you to speak on bill C-53, the proposed new Pest Control Products Act.

    The purpose of federal pest management regulations is to protect Canadians and their environment from the risks associated with pesticides. Bill C-53 seeks to strengthen that protection by including additional safeguards for children, increasing the transparency of the pesticide regulatory system, and enhancing post-registration control of pesticides.

[English]

     Bill C-53 would strengthen health and environmental protection by requiring: that special protection be afforded to infants and children; that pesticide exposure from all sources, including food and water, be taken into account; that the cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way be considered; and that pesticide risk reduction be supported.

    The bill would enshrine in legislation the requirement to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts, including additional safety factors to protect our children. For example, risk assessments done by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, often include a safety factor of 100. To take into account the special sensitivities of children, the new law would require that an additional tenfold safety factor be used, resulting in a safety factor of 1,000. This would be done unless reliable data indicated that a higher or lower safety factor was more appropriate. The additional safety factor would recognize that children and adults are affected differently by pesticides.

    Canada's registration system for pesticides would be made more transparent in a number of ways: by establishing a public registry to give Canadians access to the detailed evaluation reports that the PMRA prepares on registered pesticides; by allowing the public to view the test data on which these pesticide evaluations are based; and by allowing the PMRA to share scientific studies with federal, provincial, territorial, and international regulators.

    By enhancing transparency, Bill C-53 would increase public confidence, here and abroad, that Canadian agrifood, forestry, and other products are safe. Allowing the public to verify the grounds on which decisions are made about pesticides, via a public registry and reading room, would certainly add to public confidence in the pesticide regulatory system. Canadians would be able to see for themselves just how rigorous the scientific evaluation of pesticides is and could then base their decisions about pesticide use on the facts.

    Bill C-53 would strengthen post-registration control of pesticides by requiring pesticide companies to report adverse effects; by making it mandatory to re-evaluate older pesticides 15 years after they are registered; by providing the Minister of Health with the authority to remove pesticides from the market if the data required for a re-evaluation or special review are not supplied; and by providing for increased powers of inspection and higher maximum penalties when pesticides are not marketed or used in accordance with the law, up to $1 million for the most serious offences.

    Re-evaluations and special reviews are important to ensure that older pesticides meet today's higher standards. Strengthened capacity to conduct re-evaluations and take enforcement measures would translate into better health and environmental protection.

    I would like now to address some of the issues raised during the second reading of Bill C-53.

    Some honourable members have questioned why this bill does not include a ban on the so-called cosmetic use of chemical pesticides. Let me say that this was considered. I would like to explain why it was not included.

    First, the PCPA addresses all uses of pesticides, including those that have been described as cosmetic. Singling out cosmetic uses of pesticides for an outright ban under federal legislation presupposes that all such pesticides pose unacceptable risks when used on a lawn.

    Madam Chair, this is simply not the case, and there is no scientific evidence to support such a case. Pesticides are registered only if their risks have been determined to be acceptable when used according to instructions.

    The conditions of registration for each product are very specific. They state what the pesticide can be used on--a lawn, for example--and at what rate and frequency it must be applied.

  (1215)  

    Each proposed use is evaluated individually to determine if the risks posed by that particular use are acceptable. When a pesticide is proposed for residential uses, additional safety factors are applied to protect children. The PCPA is based primarily on the criminal law power, which is intended to address serious threats to the public interest.

    Accordingly, and this is key, once it is determined scientifically that a pesticide can be used safely--that is, its use would not pose unacceptable risks to public health or the environment--the criminal law would not support a refusal to register the product. Similarly, it would not support a decision to cancel or amend a registration to remove uses where such action was not justified by evidence of a significant risk.

    In developing the proposed new legislation we have been mindful of the important role played by provincial and territorial regulators in pest management regulation, as well as the role of municipal governments. The federal role under the PCPA is to ensure that pest control products that are registered for use in Canada do not pose unacceptable health or environmental risks. Provincial and territorial legislation, which focuses on the sale, transportation, storage, use, and disposal of registered pesticides, may add to federal restrictions, including the prohibition of specific pesticides or uses, but they may not relax them.

    At the municipal level, there may be further restrictions to the use of pesticides. The proposed new act would not change the balance of federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal powers in this area. In fact, I remind colleagues that this legislation, while many years in its amendment and reformation, is only being brought forward after lengthy and detailed discussions and consultations with all stakeholders, including the provinces, territories, and municipalities.

    Accordingly, once a product is approved for registration under the PCPA, it is entirely appropriate for provinces to further restrict the use of the pesticide, since they have more specific information on local conditions. It is also appropriate for citizens of a particular municipality to decide that they do not want to have a pesticide used in their community.

    I would like to assure you that careful consideration has been given to issues that should be addressed in Bill C-53 itself and the issues that should be addressed through regulations, policies, and guidelines.

    The approach reflected in Bill C-53 is to focus on the provision of a strong, forward-looking foundation for pest management regulation, leaving procedural issues to be addressed mainly through regulations, and details through guidelines and policies. This approach is designed so that the law and policy can adapt continually to emerging risks, new products, scientific advances, technological innovations, and new ways to manage risks and innovations in technology and risk management.

    The public and stakeholders will have an opportunity to contribute to regulation-making and the guideline and policy development processes. We think this approach is better suited to adapting to the inevitable changes in science and technology and public attitudes that characterize pest management regulation.

    Pest management regulation in Canada will be able to adjust as circumstances demand without having to wait for the enactment of legislative amendments.

    The performance of the agency has been improved through international harmonization of pesticide regulation and more efficient business practices. Joint reviews are bringing newer, lower-risk pesticides onto the market simultaneously with the United States, thereby levelling the playing field for our growers.

    Sustainable pest management practices and risk reduction in agriculture are being supported through the efforts of the agency and its partners, most notably Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

  (1220)  

[Translation]

    I want to again highlight the fact that the regulation of pesticides is of concern to all levels of government, and the PMRE works successfully with partners in other federal departments, provinces and with pesticide regulators internationally.

    The work done through these partnership efforts cannot be dictated through a federal statute, which could not be amended in a timely fashion to adapt to ever-changing pesticide regulations.

[English]

    Comments were also made during second reading that refer to the need to include the precautionary principle not only in the section on re-evaluation, but in the preamble to Bill C-53. The reason we did not do this is that the pre-market approval approach to the regulation of pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act is already a precautionary one. It's very important here, colleagues, to focus on the difference between pre-market approval and registration and post-market processes.

    If we look at that situation and the process one goes through to permit registration, it will only permit a pesticide to be manufactured, imported, or used in the country if the manufacturer satisfies us that it is acceptable for the intended use. That acceptability relates to the product health and environmental risks and values, and I, as minister, must refuse to give such approval if the manufacturer fails to prove acceptability. In other words, my department does not allow a product to be used and then wait for evidence of harm to show up before exercising authority under the act to prevent unacceptable risks.

    However, there is a role for the precautionary principle when it comes to regulating pesticides already on the market. A registered pesticide can only stay on the market if the registrant meets any demand to provide proof of the product's continuing acceptability. If the registrant fails to do so, I must take appropriate measures to address the concern, including amending or cancelling the registration. If threats of serious or irreversible harm are detected while reviewing a pesticide that is already registered, the government will not have to wait for full scientific certainty before taking cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation.

    The precautionary principle is stated in Bill C-53 in this way:

20.(2) Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation.

    This definition has already been included in legislation for which I am co-responsible, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and this is this same wording as in the 1992 Rio Declaration, except that the reference to human health has been added. This articulation of the precautionary principle is science-based and provides that we act on evidence of serious harm.

    In summary, Bill C-53 will strengthen the legislative framework for pest management regulation in Canada. It will strengthen health and environmental protection, requiring special protection for infants and children. It will also recognize the significant role played by pest management throughout Canada. Once this legislation is in place, Canadians will have the opportunity to see for themselves how thoroughly pesticides are reviewed before being allowed on the market and will make informed decisions about their use.

    In closing, Madam Chair, Bill C-53 is an important step in the process to reform Canada's pest management regulatory system. It reflects what has been learned over the last 30 years with respect to pesticides and their impact on human health and the environment.

    Madam Chair, I look forward to any questions that committee members may have. Merci beaucoup.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you for that overview, Minister McLellan.

    I at this time also welcome Dr. Franklin, who is the executive director of the agency involved. Welcome, Dr. Franklin.

    Minister, you might be interested to know that our committee has had some new people come to it. We have both Mr. Hilstrom and Mr. Speller from the agriculture committee, and Mr. Bigras, Mr. Herron, Madame Scherrer, who has always been with us, and Mrs. Kraft Sloan from the environment committee. We've enriched our committee with special expertise that people are bringing to us from other committees where some of this has been looked at in the past.

     Mr. Hilstrom.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order in regard to those comments, I'm not here as having anything to do with the agriculture committee. I'm here as a Canadian Alliance representative on the health committee.

    The Chair: Yes, I understand that, but I'm just pointing out that you have some history on another committee that has, which in a sense strengthens the intellectual capacity of this committee to deal with this subject matter.

    An hon. member: Hold it, hold it, hold it. That's another point of order.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: My concern was that the chairman of the agriculture committee might be concerned that Mr. Speller and I were here somehow speaking on behalf of that committee or something.

    The Chair: No, I didn't mean to imply that.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

    The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Hilstrom.

    We'll now proceed to questions, beginning with the Canadian Alliance Party.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for coming and introducing it. I'd like to congratulate you on your first bill as a new minister and for bringing it forward. It's 33 years overdue, but it's here and--

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Better late than never.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's true, better late than never. Especially with the history of some of the other bills we've seen you bring forward, we certainly appreciate the speed of this one.

    I have a lot of questions, because generally I agree with the intent of the bill. It's all about safety of children and the use or inappropriate use of pesticides, which I'm quite familiar with and I know a little bit about. I do not know a farmer who really enjoys using pesticides. They're a tremendous risk.

    Concerning the costs of the PMRA, I have issues with the efficiency of that organization.

    You talked about the precautionary principle a little bit and how other countries relate to some of the regulations we have, and how products come into our country and how they are used. It's an important piece of legislation. But before I get into asking you about those, which I hope you'll address, can you please explain to this committee the shift in priority of the government with regard to the piece of legislation that you have promised to bring forward to this committee by May 10? Are you still expecting us to work on that when it comes forward on May 10? Is it still a high priority?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, absolutely. I've made it absolutely plain that we will be responding to the committee's report and introducing legislation. As far as I'm concerned, in discussions with the government House leader, those two events will be coincidental, and there's absolutely no reason why this committee cannot deal with this legislation well before the House rises.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are you speaking of the pesticide or the reproductive...?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: No, assisted human reproduction. I thought that's what you were asking me about.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's what I was asking about. So it will be here--

    Ms. Anne McLellan: As I've said.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So are you instructing this committee, then, to waylay this piece of legislation if it happens to interfere, so that we go through--

  (1230)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Oh, no, it's not for me to presume, but I know this is a hard-working committee with an effective chair. I presume this will be long done by then.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: May 10...that's three weeks.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, that's three weeks.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. That puts undue pressure on the chair, I know, but we hope the committee will rally to that and hopefully it will come forward. The instruction you have to the committee, then, is that we work on reproductive technology when it comes, as quickly as possible.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Look, it's up to the committee chair and you--you're the vice-chair--and other representatives from other parties to determine the work of the committee. That's not for me to say. I can offer my comments and advice, but then it's up to you as a committee, which controls its own destiny, to decide how you want to deal with the work plan.

    You have this legislation before you. Quite truthfully, I see no reason why this legislation can't be dealt with well before May 10. If there's a reason for that, if we can provide additional expert advice or whatever is required as a department, we'd be happy to do that, and then, on assisted human reproduction, the legislation dealing with that very important subject will be introduced on or before May 10. I hope--it will depend upon the House agenda--that legislation will come to this committee fairly quickly, because you've already had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time and do good work in relation to this subject matter.

    I'm hoping that at second reading maybe there can be an agreement that the legislation be referred to this committee fairly quickly. But as I say, it's up to you to control your own destiny in that regard. All I can do is get the legislation into the House and then see how it moves forward in cooperation with the government House leader, with the leaders of all your parties, who have a direct impact on how quickly we can get legislation through second reading and to committee.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate that. I'm a little alarmed that priority one going into this session was reproductive technology, and yet the first piece of legislation is pesticides.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: As you yourself have said, we've been working on this for thirty years.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thirty-three years, actually.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: We should have been ready.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: You should have been ready, yes. This committee has invested a tremendous amount of energy and time into the reproductive--

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I know. That is why in fact I want to introduce the legislation coincidental with the response to your report, which doesn't happen very often. I want to do it--which speaks to the urgency of the matter in the mind of the government.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I was just concerned about the urgency of the mind of the government on the reproductive issues.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: We're moving ahead.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. Let's get on to the bill.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Concerning the costs of this piece of legislation coming forward, do you have comments on what it is going to cost? Are PMRA going to have an accelerated budget, and why would that be?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I'll let Dr. Franklin talk about the specifics, but yes, there will be increased resources for the PMRA. We're well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by many--obviously the agricultural sector, others who would use pesticides, and also the general public--about the ability of the PMRA to do its work upon application by a would-be registrant. We're very sensitive to that.

    A certain amount of the budget of the PMRA is, of course, cost-recovered, as you are aware. We will be putting additional resources into this. That is part and parcel of this reform of the area of pesticide management in this country. We take very seriously the criticisms that have been advanced in the past.

    We hope, both through the legislation and through increased resources, we will be able to deal with those criticisms and move forward in a way that is reassuring to everyone, Canadians generally and those who use pesticides, be they in the agricultural sector or elsewhere.

    Dr. Franklin, do you want to add anything specifically about the costs?

    Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Yes, thank you, Minister.

    I appreciate the concerns that have been raised, with the additional requirements that will be effected when this legislation comes into effect: do we have the resources to be able to deal with it?

    We have done a careful analysis of it and anticipate, with the resources we will receive, that we will be able to deliver not only on registration and timely manner of new products but also on the re-evaluation of older products, as well as the new pieces we will have to take into consideration with this legislation, which are the adverse effects reporting, the registry, and the work involved with being more open and transparent as we do that.

    We believe we will not see a reduction in what we're able to do by taking on board these additional factors.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you. What you are saying, then, is that the added resources should start to shorten the gap, as we're falling behind our U.S. counterparts, with regard to pesticides and the processing coming onto the market. Is that a fair statement?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The gap that has been raised is in many respects.... I think I have pointed out previously in fact that our times for registration, where we were able to do a direct comparison with the last year for PMRA as well as the last year for EPA, do not suggest that the timeframe for us to register products is longer than in the U.S.

    Part of the gap we face is the timing of submissions made by registrants. In many instances, they do not make an application to Canada at the same time as they do in the U.S. We recognize that. The Minister of Agriculture has also made that statement in meetings. I think it is pretty broadly recognized.

    What we have taken on board is to do joint reviews with the U.S. The very clear intent of that was to very much encourage registrants to apply to Canada and the U.S. at the same time. We believe we've been, along with our U.S. colleagues, successful in that, because at this point we're seeing more than 50% of the applications coming in either jointly or where we do a very close work share on it.

    We feel the steps we have in place will allow us to continue to get products to Canadian growers, which is very critical to them, at the same time as in the U.S.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you for your presentation to the committee. I have two responses to this bill. We're always pleased to see the federal government table a bill which, basically improves legislation that has been around for over 30 years. However, we are rather disappointed in the options put forward in your bill.

    I don't have to tell you that pesticides contain 500 active ingredients. Of those 500 active ingredients, 300 were improved prior to 1981 and 150 were approved prior to 1960. The standards at the time were not at all comparable to what we may expect in terms of public health protection. The standards at the time were much lower than today.

    I'm also rather disappointed to hear you tell me that “The PMRA works well”. Just in case you didn't quite catch that, I shall repeat it for you. You said that the “PMRA works well”. I was somewhat surprised to hear you say that when, as you probably know, the Environment Commissioner stated in 1999 that the absence of an effective re-evaluation program means there is no assurance that Canadians are protected from exposure to unacceptable risks. She went on to say that we found Canada's track record to be one of inaction and unfulfilled commitments. Consequently, when you say that the PMRA works well, I'm quite skeptical.

    There is one other point that I would like to bring up with you, and have your comments on. I'm somewhat surprised to hear you trivialize the impact of pesticide use on public health, especially children, infants and pregnant women. It seems to me that your responsibility is to protect public health. Consequently, I have the following question on this issue.

    Why have you refused to include a unanimous recommendation from the Standing Committee or Environment and Sustainable Development in your bill? The recommendation of that Committee was based on the proposals of a Quebec task force. The Committee suggested that pesticide should be phased out over five years.

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Regarding your assertion that we do not take the health risks of children and pregnant women seriously, in fact we do. This legislation is very much focused upon acknowledging that there are unique populations within our society where differential impacts need to be carefully considered. In fact, that's what this legislation does; it makes it very clear. That's not to suggest that work wasn't being done already, but it makes it absolutely clear--as a statement of statutory mandate, if you like--that specific population groups such as children, pregnant women, in some cases seniors, for example, will be especially considered.

    You talk generally about the time of review or re-evaluation of those pesticides that have already been approved--existing registrants that are on the market. This legislation speaks to the fact that we will undertake a re-evaluation of those existing registrants. In fact, Dr. Franklin can talk about the fact that this has been made a priority for the PMRA as part of its work plan. We know there are pesticides that have been registered some number of years ago, and that scientific knowledge has increased, risk assessment processes have increased, our health knowledge has increased, and especially in terms of sensitive populations. All that will be taken into account when pesticides presently registered are re-evaluated.

  (1240)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I agree with the minister, Madam Chair, when she says that there is to be a re-evaluation process. I hope so, because that is the purpose of this legislation. There is to be a process and I acknowledge the fact.

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: That's what the act talks about.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, that is indeed the purpose of the bill. What I want to know is whether there is a cut-off date before which these substances must be re-assessed. Must those pesticides re-assessed after given number of months or years?

    Secondly, if the Minister intends to protect Canadians from pesticide use, would the ideal solution not be to promote, even fast-track, the certification process for organic pesticides?

    Madam Chair, I do not think that I have to remind anyone that, at this point in time in Canada, only 30 organic pesticides are currently commercially available, whereas in the United States there are 150. Will the PMRA, in an attempt to do its job as effectively as possible, as the Minister wants us to believe, issue a clear directive to its officials telling them that the most effective way of controlling pests is to promote alternative pesticides and to fast-track the organic pesticide registration process. It is in fact by using organic pesticides that we will most effectively control pests in Canada. The Minister has refused to include such provisions in her bill but we will be tabling amendments to have organic pesticides included.

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, the PMRA is doing it, will continue to do it, and will enhance its efforts through the process of joint review.

    In terms of the re-evaluation of existing registered pesticides, there is a requirement in the legislation that they be re-evaluated at the end of 15 years.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    I'm a little concerned about the registration process. I know farmers, if they're going to use pesticides on crops, must have a registration process they're involved in. They also need to have a written test in order to use the pesticides.

    I can go to Canadian Tire and buy pesticides to spray on my lawn, whether it be one, two, or three acres. Hundreds of thousands of people are doing it every summer, but the farmers have to go through a registration process.

    I realize the farmers are using about 90% of the pesticides in this country. The non-agriculture component is using about 10%.

    Is there any thought in this bill towards a control of pesticides, regarding the urban communities and so forth, besides what is written on a can or container?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Keep in mind, the role of the federal government is through the exercise of the criminal law power. It means we act in relation to the protection of public health and safety. Therefore, on the basis of the best scientific evidence and all the factors outlined in this legislation, once a decision is made that a pesticide is safe for the intended use, it will be registered. It's the end of the federal government's constitutional authority here.

    The provinces and municipalities have absolutely key roles. In fact, the bulk, in a sense, of the registration task is ours. Transportation within the province, use within the province, and storage within the province, are all within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

    The municipalities, as we've seen already, can choose, based on local circumstances, to go further, if authorized in an enabling legislation that creates the municipality or city under some general umbrella legislation, such as the Municipalities Act.

    We've seen, obviously, in the township of Hudson, they chose to do it. Other local communities are choosing to do it. It is within the delegated constitutional authority that flows from the province.

    We must be very mindful of what the appropriate role of the federal government is and what the appropriate constitutional authority of the provinces is.

    Once it's registered, the provinces can impose various restrictions and other things in relation to the use by a farmer, the storage by a farmer, or the use or storage by anyone, as far as that goes.

    Dr. Franklin, is there anything you want to add?

  (1245)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I think the points are all very correct. I think there are ones we should be mindful of.

    The point you raised regarding training or certification of applicators is a provincial responsibility. We do work with the provinces to establish training guidelines and assist in whatever way we can. Under the provincial pesticide legislation, it is their responsibility.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I asked the question deliberately to have it clarified for the farmers in my community, who came to see me last week regarding this bill. I really appreciate the succinct manner in which you've responded to the area of concern.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Could I ask you a question?

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: What was their specific concern?

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: They sit on the provincial council. They wanted controls imposed on the distributors to the point where everyone should get a certificate in order to use it. I told them it was impossible.

    However, I have another question. I'm so pleased to hear there's going to be an increase in the infrastructure, resources, human beings, and so forth, involved in the inspection process, testing, and so forth, on the federal level.

    I'll give you a scenario. Let's say we get 100,000 crates of tomatoes from Mexico and 500,000 crates of grapes from Chile. They're unloaded in Canada. The grapes come from about 5,000 or 6,000 different farmers. The tomatoes come from about 10,000 different farmers, because no one big farm will produce all of it for our market. We're talking about a multitude of farmers raising crops to give to a co-op. In turn, a distributor will sell it to the Safeways and Loblaws of Canada.

    How are we going to guarantee to the Canadian consumer that all of the produce is absolutely safe when we know many of the farmers will be using pesticides?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I think what you're getting at here are the maximum allowable residual levels.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: As I understand it, this is something we work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on. It's not actually PMRA's responsibility to inspect; it's the CFIA, and that agency is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.

    Dr. Franklin, do you want to explain to Mr. Dromisky in a little bit more detail how the maximum residual level procedure works?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The process when we're doing an evaluation.... If the product is to be used on food crops, we would determine what the MRL, as we call it, or maximum residue level, could be. That level is then established under the Food and Drugs Act.

    CFIA then does the inspections at the border for produce that's coming across the border, and they check to see whether or not the produce complies with those levels that have been established under the Food and Drugs Act. If they don't, they turn the produce away.

    I could just add one aspect that's rather interesting, which is that of course many of the countries that are exporting to Canada actually have.... If we take the case of Mexico, they have had the procedures that have been developed by both the Canadian government and the U.S. government implemented in the laboratories they have in their country, and in fact they will do testing of the produce before they even ship it.

    They're no more interested in shipping produce that's going to be turned away at the border than we are in receiving it. So I think that is a very active process that both our government and the U.S. government have worked with, in particular with Mexico, to assist in having produce come in that's acceptable.

  (1250)  

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Very good. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

    Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    In just less than two months we'll be marking the second anniversary since your government and the former Minister of Health announced the ban of Dursban. He was quite vocal about it. It was in response to an attempt to get the company that produced this chemical, which has been well documented for creating serious health risks, especially for children.... The former minister attempted a voluntary ban. When that didn't work, he announced in the House and to the public that he would be mandating its withdrawal from the market. Almost two years later, this dangerous toxic substance is still on the market. The product Dursban is still in use. Why hasn't your government taken efforts to ban the substance?

    It's a critical question, because to have faith in this new legislation, which is supposed to have the teeth to ensure that we can regulate this field with science and with the best interests of people's health.... How do we justify and understand this kind of lack of action?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, in relation to this, it is being phased out. It will be, I think--Dr. Franklin tells me--off the market by next year. Our approach to it is exactly the same as that of the U.S. EPA. Obviously, while the PMRA makes it own independent assessments in relation to these matters where we can, we work jointly with the U.S. EPA. Our approach in relation to Dursban is identical to that of the EPA. We're phasing it out on exactly the same timeframe.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I guess the follow-up question to that is what kind of a ban is that, when in fact--

    Ms. Anne McLellan: It's not a ban; it's a phase-out.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well let me just refer you then to Mr. Rock's statements back on June 8, 2000, when he clearly indicated that the Government of Canada was banning this product--and for good reason. I mean, we know from all kinds of studies that in fact Dursban leads to problems in terms of the nervous system, brain disorders, memory loss, blurred vision, and the list goes on and on. So the risks are known, the science is there, and we still haven't got the ability, as a government, to ban something that hazardous, that dangerous. Why not?

    I guess the related question is on a similar substance, Lindane, a gender-bending substance, banned by 28 countries, still under review by Canada. It has been studied for a couple of years. The science is in. It's a suspected carcinogen. It causes all kinds of problems in terms of abnormal brain development, serious neurological disorders, and yet it's still on the market and as we speak is still being used by canola producers for cleaning seed. It's a constant source of grief for many Canadians. I know that you have received communication from folks in the town of Elmira, Ontario, who want to see action taken. Why not?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: In that area, it is also being phased out, and we are well ahead of the U.S. EPA and their approach in relation to Lindane.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So what you're saying, Madam Minister, is that in fact even when the science is in and the health risks are known and there's a serious harm to children, we're going to allow it on the market as long as there is still product available. So a ban--

  (1255)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: No, that's not what I said.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: A ban is only in effect when in fact the product is used up, no matter how many children have been exposed to such dangerous substances.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: We can ban a product outright if in fact the scientific evidence justifies that, and there are other approaches that one can take as well, such as a phase-out. As I say, in relation to Dursban, in that context we are doing exactly that which the U.S. EPA is doing. It is being phased out in the same timeframe.

    With Lindane, we are well ahead of the U.S. EPA in terms of their evaluations and their approach to this issue, and it will be phased out by the end of next year.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Minister, you have the--

    Ms. Anne McLellan: If you want to disagree--

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, I don't want to disagree. I'm saying the former Minister of Health obviously felt that the science was in and called for a ban.

    You're now saying there isn't a ban but a phase-out. What I'm asking for is, based on science, why not actually ban something that dangerous and toxic to children's health?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, we do use good science, and that is in fact what the PMRA, along with sister organizations in other countries, such as the EPA, do.

    I am not aware of what my predecessor said. I am being informed by Dr. Franklin that he did not say or indicate that it would be banned, but I am more than happy to follow up on exactly what he said. But obviously, as the Minister of Health, I am now responsible for the administration of this legislation. I will be responsible for the administration of the new legislation, and our decisions will be made on the basis of sound science.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Dr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Doctor? You elevate me far too much, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Why not? You've earned it.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Minister, I have one quick question, and then a second one for one of my colleagues, who is not able to be here right now.

    First, there have been articles written at different times about suspected or potential impacts of pesticides or herbicides as a causal factor in Parkinson's disease. Is the department currently funding research, either through CIHR or itself, in that area?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I'll have to ask Dr. Franklin that. I don't know.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: There may well be research studies that are funded by CIHR. I'm not familiar with all the research that's supported by that organization. But I know there are numerous studies being done on that particular disease.

    The study that was reported to have suggested that there was a linkage with pesticides has certainly been reviewed by organizations around the world, but I don't believe there has been a conclusion that in fact there was causal evidence for that.

    There are, as you are well aware, many mitigating factors in a disease such as that, but we as an agency are certainly aware of that work and keep abreast of any developments in that area.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Maybe what we could do, Mr. Alcock, as the committee or you have raised the issue, is provide you with the information we have, and we can also refer you to some of the studies and assessments of those that have been done, so that if you want, you can take a more detailed look at that.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

    I ask this next question with a bit of caution in that it's not mine; it's for a colleague who is interested in this. I don't fully understand the issue. It may be similar to what Mr. Dromisky was asking, but it's what's called “minor use”. It's not the major chemical ones, used in growing a crop, but it may be one that is used in certain specialties.

    Is there an area there that is not being picked up or is not being covered in the regulations?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: That would obviously be an issue of concern to our colleague Mr. Speller, who has just re-entered the room.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: As a matter of fact, you can detail the question.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: I don't know whether Mr. Speller wants to add anything to that or has the opportunity to, for the record. Do you want to say anything?

    The Chair: It's a question about minor use, which your colleague has just requested.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, Lib.): Certainly we appreciate the work that your office has been giving a number of rural members over the past little while who were concerned about minor use. I'm just wondering if you could outline for the committee what direction you're going in on this.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: This is a very important area for the agricultural sector in this country. It is one we have been working on as a department and the PMRA as an agency, very closely with our colleagues in Agriculture Canada.

    I just spoke, as late as this morning, with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who will be in the very near future making an announcement in and around minor use and new initiatives that will be put in place to facilitate minor use on behalf of the agricultural sector. I can't comment on the details of those because they rest with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, but we are working very closely with them and understand the importance of this as a companion piece, really, to our new pesticides legislation in this country.

    I am very mindful of the fact that the agricultural sector--the horticultural association and others--have made the issue of minor use a key concern for them, and it's one that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be moving on.

    I don't know, Dr. Franklin, whether you feel free to say anything at this point that doesn't pre-empt my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, in this regard.

·  (1300)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: It is correct that this is an area that has raised a number of issues over the past while. I think we as an agency also have taken on board some activities that should assist in moving this file forward. I can speak to the ones we have committed to do; that is, to extend the reduced risk program that's a joint program with EPA established in 1996. We really, truly were mindful of the need to get reduced-risk products onto the Canadian market and wanted them at the same time. That's why that was our first joint review program.

    We have committed to extend that program for products that may only be submitted in Canada. It will have exactly the same criteria and be the same program as we already have in place, but we will then be trying to encourage registrants, if they had not taken advantage of the joint review program, to come into Canada. That's one aspect we've committed to do.

    The other was to have a look at the 0.1 default MRL. We've committed to do it, and we'll have a document that will be available for consultation. This is a complicated area. We want to make sure we have it right before we go to make changes to the food and drug regulations. We look forward to comments that will be made on it.

    We've also committed to look organizationally at how we could focus our activity. We have people working on it, but we will enhance it and have a more visible focal point for it, so that perhaps the issues could more readily be brought forward.

    We feel from the agency side that those aspects should help. As the minister has commented, I think a very major portion of the solution resides with Agriculture as well. We're optimistic we will collectively be able to move this file forward.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Herron.

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

    I would like to compliment the minister for tabling legislation on this particular act. We've been following this for the last two and a half years. We were always told the legislation would be coming shortly, so maybe coming in a timely manner is a better approach in that regard.

    I'd like to go down the road a little bit on the precautionary principle, because I think we have a difference of opinion about whether it's enshrined to the degree you might think.

    As you know, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which applies to all industrial chemicals except for pesticides, operationalized the precautionary principle in the general administration of the act. We both agree on that point.

    You were saying in your remarks that essentially that's what this act does, because there's a precautionary approach that takes place when the approval of new substances takes place. My first comment would be, if you're already doing it and it might do some good, why not enshrine it in the act in the first place?

    The second point, which I think is really the kicker, though, is that you're referring to when new substances are registered. But what happens during the re-evaluation of substances? That's where the precautionary principle needs to be operationalized as well, because re-evaluation is fundamentally different from the introduction of new substances.

    The largest issue here is that industry needs to know and have some kind of predictability about when you may utilize the precautionary principle and perhaps when you might not.

    That's one line of questioning I'd like to pursue, and I have a short second one. But I'll let you respond, Madam Minister.

·  (1305)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: As I mentioned, the definition of the precautionary principle is identical to that in CEPA and in fact is an enhanced definition from the Rio Declaration. The precautionary principle is enshrined as it relates to the re-evaluation of pesticides that are registered presently or would be registered in the future. At the time of re-evaluation, the precautionary principle would be applicable. The approach of precaution and the precautionary principle form the entire underlying basis of the legislation.

    Keep in mind that you have to distinguish the two distinct sets of situations here. One is post-registration. What is the process and what standards are to be applied in relation to the process by which one registers a pesticide in the first place? The re-evaluation process is a different issue. It speaks to post-market, after the product has been on the market. There may be evidence of adverse effects and there may be additional scientific studies and experience of other jurisdictions as we harmonize more and share more information.

    At that point, the legislation speaks specifically to the fact that with the precautionary principle, we don't have to wait for scientific certainty. One still uses good science. I think the precautionary principle is often misunderstood by people in terms of what they think it permits. The precautionary principle is not based on bad science. It is based on good science, but one does not have to have scientific certainty to act.

    Mr. John Herron: We agree on that point. I believe you have the discretion to use the precautionary principle. If there is a consensus amongst the health care community and the environmental community that this might produce some good--you're saying it won't do any harm because you're essentially utilizing this as a toolkit--why not enshrine it further? We'll debate that perhaps as we go on, but I can move to a second point.

    I would like to talk about the cosmetic use of pesticides as well. I think it's fair and reasonable to accept your constitutional position in terms of what level of government is empowered to really utilize this on the ground, from a ban perspective.

    The committee report that the environment committee reviewed on pesticides back in the year 2000 really had a very distinct aspect as to what the Government of Canada should do. It's clearly within the purview of the federal government to promote a reduced reliance campaign, almost to actually educate the public about the cumulative effects of pesticides, particularly for cosmetic use of pesticides. We've even said as a party that we should go down the road of a public awareness campaign about the detrimental effects pesticides can have on human health, in the same degree that we might do with cigarette smoking and tobacco use. There is a strong weight of evidence that there can be a detrimental effect to human health in that regard.

    It's clearly in the purview of the federal government to really have a proactive reduced reliance campaign. So that's one aspect I'd like to touch on.

    The Chair: Your time is actually up. Can you just quickly articulate the question so that they can quickly answer?

    Mr. John Herron: Maybe I'll seek some comment on that.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Use is a matter of provincial responsibility. Keep in mind that we register, we determine. When a registrant comes before us, they indicate the use, the quantity, the site and dosage, and it is determined whether or not the product should be registered for that purpose in that context. That is the role of the federal government. If one wants to control the use of that in a particular area, that is up to the provinces.

    We do have an education and information campaign. For example, if you want to use the analogy of cigarette smoking, there's no ban on cigarettes. That's simple. What we do is educate people around possible scientifically based health risks in relation to smoking and in relation to the use of pesticides as it relates to, for example, an individual buying something for use on his or her lawn. We are engaging in an aggressive and enhanced public education and information campaign around healthy lawns. We can do that as a matter of general education and information, but the actual restrictions on use after registration are a matter for the province or municipality.

·  (1310)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Herron.

    Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Again, I would like to compliment the minister on finally bringing this legislation forward. We do appreciate it.

    In trying to understand how well the government works, particularly in the area of making good public policy decisions, it's often important to take a look at the tools at the disposal of the government. Some of the tools can be legislative tools. Some of them can be things like guidelines, regulation making, and that sort of thing.

    Following in the vein of precautionary principle, given the fact there is limited articulation of precautionary principle in this legislation, and you have spoken about the approach underlying the bill being a precautionary approach, I wanted to ask you some questions about the discussion paper put out by Health Canada and seven other science-based departments. It's the discussion paper entitled, A Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Approach/Principle.

    Evidently, in this consultation document or discussion paper, there are different alternatives, ways, or guidelines on how to apply the precautionary principle or precautionary approach and how it might be applied in Canada.

    Why has this consultation been initiated? How will the information be used once we get feedback on the guidelines on how to implement the precautionary principle? Is there a discussion on the difference between precautionary approach and precautionary principle?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: You're going to have to talk to those who, in a sense, issued the document on behalf of the government. In fact, there are a number of departments. DFAIT may or may not have been the lead. I'm not sure. However, I think you could request the information, perhaps, from PCO.

    It's a government-wide consultative document. We, obviously, will offer our views and receive the views of those who wish to offer them to us as part of the overall initiative. As I understand it, it is a government-wide consultation paper.

    I think it would be better if you approached PCO or, as I say, DFAIT. I have a vague remembrance of how this evolved at committee some months ago. Talk to them about that particular instrument.

    I understand the use of the language of precautionary approach or precautionary principle, as Dr. Franklin tells me, is the same. There's no distinction made between the two in the consultative document.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When you're involved in international circles, particularly, on discussions on different protocols, the issue of precautionary principle or precautionary approach becomes quite important and is a bit of a stickler.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: It's why I think DFAIT is the lead.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

    Madam Chair, I think it's important to get some information on this particular consultation and document. It will help to guide our understanding of how the precautionary principle approach is actually being utilized, particularly with regard to this legislation. It's also important to understand the context in which the legislation is going to be applied, even though the matter before this committee is the legislation itself.

    Through you to the minister, is it possible for us to get a copy of the Health Canada response, if that's what I understand? You will be adding comments. Is that correct or not?

·  (1315)  

    Ms. Anne McLellan: It's on our website.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's on your website.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. It would be very good.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

    I'll go to Mr. Hilstrom.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    One of the issues around the country now is, of course, GM foods and pesticides. You can produce GM foods. For instance, in Prince Edward Island, you could have GM potatoes. They're already developed and ready to go.

    Do you support the use of it? Should you, as a government, and you, personally, be recommending that GM foods be highly promoted in this country, because they can be grown without the use of pesticides and can prevent the Colorado beetle on potatoes, for example? Could you comment?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: It's a very difficult and controversial issue, one the committee is looking at. It's a controversial issue not only us; it is for the Europeans and for the United States. I look forward to seeing the work this committee does. I know the agriculture committee has been doing work as it relates to genetically modified foods.

    I think the point of view you put in play is one that has to be considered. Obviously, there are many sides to the discussion around genetically modified foods, and there are those who suggest very strongly that in fact, at least in certain cases, there may be benefits in terms of providing a safer food supply. Then there are those whose position is, under no circumstances. You get into the issues of voluntary and mandatory labelling for informing the public. In fact, this is something the committee is looking at, and I'll be very interested to know how they synthesize everything they're hearing, pro and con, around this issue of genetically modified foods.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Health Canada has already explicitly said that they know of no reason and have no examples of any illness that's ever been caused by a GM product. In any event, we'll move on just a bit here.

    As to this open-ended precautionary principle concept, I'll give you an example of where it was misused by the European Union. They misused that principle to stop the importation into Europe of cattle and beef grown using a natural growth hormone. The science, as it was dragged through the WTO courts and other scientific consideration processes, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it is 100% safe, with very limited risk.

    Why should we as Canadians believe you as the minister and trust you that you won't misuse the precautionary principle?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: We have to understand the basis of the precautionary principle, and sometimes this is forgotten. There are those who wilfully forget it, and I get as upset by them as you do. The precautionary principle is founded on the basis of sound science. It's not a case of somebody waking up one morning and saying, gosh, I had a reaction to X, therefore under the precautionary principle I get to ban X or Y. That's not what the precautionary principle is about.

    I have no time for those who would misuse the principle in a destructive way. We need to understand that it is profoundly beneficial in the sense that scientific certainty is not required before we can move perhaps to protect a population, take something off the market, or limit something's availability for the protection of the population or some part of that population.

    But if you're asking me if I have any time for those who would misuse the principle and invoke bad science as opposed to good science in terms of the use of the principle, the answer is absolutely not. That calls the entire principle, the approach, into disrepute, and we should all condemn that outright.

    There are those who will use these kinds of principles, which are important when used appropriately, as implicit trade barriers. I am not suggesting that is what the European Union was doing; I do not know enough about the facts of the case. But we must be watchful as a nation that these principles in the name of the environment, of health, or of safety are not improperly used, invoked as nothing more than hidden barriers to trade for our agricultural products or for other products our agricultural industry might produce in this country.

·  (1320)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom. Your five minutes is up.

    Mr. Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    If I have understood correctly, one of the goals of this bill, among others, is to enhance consumer confidence regarding pesticide safety. You referred a great deal to protecting children and pregnant women. I presume that you have not forgotten the most vulnerable segments of Canadian society, such as seniors. You didn't mention them. We are aware that some chemical products used do pose health risks for seniors. Consequently, even though you omitted to mention them, this bill is designed to protect them as well.

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, exactement.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: The term “vulnerability“ worries me somewhat. As Minister of Health, you are saying that products which are deemed hazardous are to be gradually phased out. However, cases where products are found to be hazardous yet remain available commercially for another year will continue to wreak havoc. My colleague asked you why hazardous products are not immediately withdrawn from the market. Why would we wait a year? Why would we phase them out?

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, we can. In those cases where scientific evidence requires that and speaks to the immediate banning of a herbicide, fungicide, or insecticide, we can ban it outright. Then there are other situations where the scientific evidence does not justify an immediate ban and where a phase-out may be more appropriate.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: What you're saying is that, according to your second scenario, the product is not deemed to be hazardous in the short-term, but perhaps in the long term.

    I will come back to that later because, I would like to elicit other information from you.

    It seems to me that the Minister of Health should increasingly towards eliminating the use of pesticides. We are well aware that in Europe, for instance, much work has been done on organic products. I would expect that a bill such as yours might provide assistance for producers to gradually shift to using organic pesticides instead of chemical pesticides. Have you thought about this issue? Don't you think that a proposal to completely phase out chemical pesticide use over a certain number of years would improve this bill?

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, we are. For example, we do not charge a fee for those seeking approval for organic pesticides. So,we facilitate that. Much of this work is done through joint review with agencies such as the U.S. EPA, and obviously that can facilitate the getting to market, getting through the registration process in a timely and efficient fashion, so that these products are on the market.

    Indeed, I take your point that I think those who wish to come forward with a proposed organic pesticide should be encouraged to do so. We have in place a number of mechanisms by which we can facilitate their registration if they meet other standards.

    Your point is a good one. I don't disagree with it, and we're indeed moving in that direction.

·  (1325)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

    Take chemical products for lawns: I continue to find it quite upsetting when I see signs on laws instructing people not to walk on the grass for 24 hours because a hazardous mo duct has just been applied to it.

    Have you not tried to make this bill a bit more strict? By that, I mean prohibiting the use of these hazardous products for solely cosmetic puspases, for example, on lawns and golf courses. In Germany, a great deal of research has been done and, as a result, pesticides are no longer used on golf courses. Don't you think that it would be a good idea to tighten this bill and to aim at eliminating cosmetic uses of pesticides?

[English]

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Keep in mind, when somebody comes to apply for registration, they do so on a basis of an intended use. We assess whether or not the product is safe in relation to that intended use. If it is, we will register. Then it is up to the provinces. Keep in mind that this is an area, ladies and gentlemen, where the federal and provincial governments have worked cooperatively for decades. Everybody understands the shared jurisdiction.

    We have a role and it's on the basis of the criminal law power, which is a limited power. The provinces have jurisdiction, once the product is registered, in relation to how it is used, how it is transported within the province, how it is stored, and a whole host of things. In fact, we are all working together. We work together cooperatively.

    I would say that if there is a province or more likely a municipality that wants to exercise its constitutional authority to limit use or to determine that a certain use will not take place in a locale because of unique, maybe environmental, circumstances or geographic circumstances, then that is up to the municipality and/or the province to do that.

    I would hope that you, of all people, Monsieur, would respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gagnon.

    We now have about three minutes left, and I have Ms. Wasylycia-Leis and Mr. Herron, so I'm going to restrict you to a minute and a half each.You should get your question out quickly.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Very quickly, I'd just like to address the fact, Madam Minister, that you've given us some very conflicting statements on the precautionary principle. I agree with you absolutely that this is about science, and it's about science either proving that something is unsafe or saying there's a doubt about its safety, in which case it's up to government and regulatory agencies to take action.

    Then, on the other hand, you've said that when it comes to a product such as Dursban or Lindane, we have enough science to phase out the product but not enough to ban it. I don't understand how that can be. What are you saying? Does it mean that some kids get brain damage or all kids get some brain damage?

    Ms. Anne McLellan: No. I think it's again most unfortunate that we.... I see my role as an elected politician and as a minister of the crown to try to inform, to understand, and wherever possible not to unduly or unnecessarily scare or harm. This is a complex area and one in which scientific certitude.... That's the whole basis of the precautionary principle. There is not scientific certitude, but that does not mean you do not act on the basis of good science. Therefore, I again caution that it may be easy to frighten those....

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But, Madam Minister, you were the one who said it doesn't require science--

    The Chair: Order. The question is over. It's Mr. Herron's turn.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: There are a number of different tools available to us, depending upon the circumstances, including the scientific evidence. Madam Chair, Dr. Franklin just wants to talk a little bit about this area, because it is important.

    This is very important, Madam Chair. I would like Dr. Franklin to just respond in a little bit more detail to this.

    Doctor, would you explain for the member the approach we take?

·  (1330)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I'll try to be brief on this. When we're looking at and doing re-evaluation there are a number of outcomes that can come from that. One, which is generally not that frequent, can be in fact that there's such a significant problem that immediate action has to be taken. Those usually come to us as special review--there's a specific event so that we have to take action.

    When we're doing a re-evaluation, we're really looking at the totality of information. I'd just like to point out that when we're doing a risk assessment, what we're really working from is the level at which we see no effect in any of the test data that are provided to us. We have a margin and we want to see that the level of exposure is lower than that. What we're doing and what has come on board in the last few years is in fact that we're looking for a much greater margin.

    The issue with Dursban was that the initial margin was not one that we were unduly concerned about, but we really wanted to see a much wider margin. It was not that we were going to cause unacceptable risk by allowing the product to continue and by having an orderly removal. It was really that we wanted to get to that point where we knew, on an ongoing basis, we would have that much wider a margin.

    I think the point is that if there really is evidence the margin is not there and there's a problem, that's when we would ban immediately. If the margin is narrower than what we would like, but it's still not going to cause unacceptable effects, then we would take on board to phase it out.

    The Chair: We're past our time. I'm afraid Ms. Wasylycia-Leis used up your time, Mr. Herron. But I will ask the minister if she would give us a few more minutes so that Mr. Herron can get his question in.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Sure, that's fine.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Herron.

    Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, Madam Minister.

    I will be that much more judicious with my language in that regard.

    I believe from the intent of your language throughout this afternoon that your objective on the precautionary principle is similar to the objective we're trying to follow as the Progressive Conservative Party.

    The difference is that I believe you have to go to clause 20 of the bill where the precautionary principle is mentioned for the very first time. It really speaks to where it's empowered, and that is to the cancellation or the amendment of a particular product. What I'm suggesting is that the bar is set lower here in this bill as opposed to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, because in section 2 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act it speaks directly to the precautionary principle. Everything it does throughout the act is that the precautionary principle transcends all actions within the act.

     I think it would be prudent for the Government of Canada to add an administrative duties section, similar to what we have in CEPA, to enshrine the intent in the dialogue you've had earlier today. That's my suggestion to you, through the chair.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: As I say, this is very much in line, and in fact identical, with CEPA as it relates to post-marketing.

    Pre-marketing is a different process, and I think it's important for people to be able to distinguish the two distinct acts that are taking place here. But as it relates to pre-marketing, the precautionary principle is at work when Dr. Franklin and her associates determine whether anything ever gets registered in the first place, to be used by anyone.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Herron. And thank you to all of you.

    Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you for coming.

    The meeting is now adjourned.