HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Á

1110

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

Mr. Don McCabe (Chair, Pesticide Issues Committee, AGCare)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Jack Wilkinson (Member, Executive Council, Canadian Federation of Agriculture)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Shannon Coombs (Director, Government Relations, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association)

Á

1130

Á

1135

Mr. Chuck Beach (First Vice-President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association)

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Hepworth (President, CropLife Canada)

Á

1145

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

Mr. Jack Wilkinson

Á

1155

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Craig Hunter (Technical Advisor, AGCare)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Craig Hunter

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Jack Wilkinson

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Craig Hunter

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Jack Wilkinson

Â

1200

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Ms. Shannon Coombs

The Chair

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

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

Â

1205

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Chuck Beach

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Jack Wilkinson

Â

1210

The Chair

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

The Chair

Don McCabe

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Jack Wilkinson

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

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

Ms. Shannon Coombs

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Craig Hunter

Mr. Bob Speller

Â

1220

Mr. Jack Wilkinson

The Chair

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

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

Â

1225

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

Ms. Nicole Howe (Environmental Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Agriculture)

Mr. Chuck Beach

The Chair

Mr. Lunney

Mr. Chuck Beach

Mr. Lorne Hepworth

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 069

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order and to welcome our witnesses as we review Bill C-53.

    I'd like to give the floor right away to the representatives of AGCare, whose chair is Don McCabe, with his technical adviser Craig Hunter.

    Mr. Don McCabe (Chair, Pesticide Issues Committee, AGCare): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the rest of the committee for the opportunity to present here today. I would like to move immediately to our brief dated April 23, 2002.

    First, I'll give you a bit of history about AGCare. Agricultural Groups Concerned about Resources and the Environment is a coalition of agricultural groups that represent Ontario's 45,000 field and horticultural crop growers. The organization's mandate is to provide public information and policy initiatives on crop biotechnology, crop protection, and related environmental issues.

    We are pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the proposed new Pest Control Products Act with members of the Standing Committee on Health. As representatives of Ontario's crop producer sector, we support Health Canada's efforts to revise and improve Canada's 30-year-old Pest Control Products Act. The proposed act's emphasis on access to reduced-risk, safer alternatives for pest control is very welcome. Farmers have long cited the need for access to newer, safer technologies for protecting farm crops from pest damage. What is not clear, however, is whether the act will facilitate user access to safe and effective pest control products, thus ensuring that farmers have the tools they need to meet Canada's needs, both domestically and for export, for food, fibre, and other agricultural products.

    We appreciate and fully support the need to regulate pest control products in a manner that ensures safety for all Canadians and for the environment. The current regulatory process recognizes these priorities as well. Many policies and procedures outlined in the proposed legislation, special consideration for the needs of children and infants, additional margins of safety for vulnerable populations, and consideration of the cumulative effects of pesticide exposure from multiple sources are already adopted in practice by regulators in the industry, but are not part of the PCP Act currently in place. Thus we support their inclusion in the proposed act. However, we are somewhat concerned that the proposed act includes little apparent consideration of users' needs or the critical role pesticides play in agricultural production and the maintenance of public health.

    Our first specific area of concern is loss of access to existing pest control products under the provisions of Bill C-53. The legislation calls for mandatory re-evaluation of all pesticides within 15 years of their introduction, as well as immediate review of any pesticide that is banned in an OECD country. These provisions could result in the removal of pesticides from the marketplace in cases where farmers have no suitable alternatives to those products for protecting their crops. In other jurisdictions, such as the U.S., regulators can remove a product from the market only if a suitable alternative is available. Ontario's crop growers are disappointed that a similar condition was not included in the new legislation in order to protect agrifood production and provide an incentive to federal regulators for ensuring that improved farm production technologies are readily made available.

    The legislation proposes that Canada's health minister must initiate a special review of registered pest control products containing an active ingredient that is prohibited for use in any member country of the OECD. While the review goes on, any additional registrations involving that active ingredient, including submissions already under consideration, would be suspended. While such a review may be warranted under some circumstances, such as the emergence of new safety or toxicological concerns, other reasons for review in different jurisdictions may not be applicable to Canada, as a result of our different use patterns, pest complexes, pest populations, etc.

    Canadian growers face many competitive barriers as a result of denied access to the same array of pest control products available to growers from competing jurisdictions, and they have long requested that such barriers be addressed by our regulators. Because many of the newer pest control technologies available only to growers in other countries are also safer, more efficient, more environmentally benign, and more target-specific, Canada's general public and the environment could also be better protected from the potential risks of pesticide use through improved access for growers to newer, safer pest control options.

    It is inconsistent to use the pest control product registration decisions made in other jurisdictions to prompt reviews and product withdrawals without also accepting them as a trigger for potential approvals. Harmonizing the removal of products from the marketplace is viable only if the introduction of replacement products and new technologies is also harmonized. Although the farm community has long promoted the need for harmonization of new product approvals, success to date has been extremely limited.

    Our second area concerns potential disincentives to the registration of new pest control products and the impact of measures to increase transparency in the regulatory process. The proposed act calls for several new measures to increase the transparency of the regulatory process. These include public access to detailed evaluation reports on the health and environmental risks and the value of registered pesticides; public access to confidential test data generated for the health, environmental, and value reviews of a pesticide; the public and affected stakeholders being able to request the reconsideration of a pesticide registration decision.

    While increased transparency may provide greater public confidence in the regulatory process, the proposed measures could result in a further drag on the availability of submissions for registration. Rather than disclose what is likely to be considered proprietary business information, companies may choose to defer or avoid registration of new products for the Canadian market, particularly for minor uses where the potential market size is limited. As a result, newer, safer products will not be available to Canadian growers, and the technology gap between Canada and the U.S. will continue to widen. The provision for special reviews at the request of the public and affected stakeholders could also be used to slow new product approvals. New measures to increase regulatory transparency should more closely parallel the U.S. EPA guidelines, to facilitate parity between the two countries.

    The third area concerns the special needs of minor use, which are not recognized in the proposed act. This is a major concern. Although the specific needs represented by minor uses are individually small, in combination they represent a significant percentage of total use for Canadian growers.

    According to backgrounders released by Health Canada, several commitments will be undertaken on behalf of minor use. The PMRA will identify a full-time minor use adviser, make changes to the boundaries of geographic zones to reduce the number of residue trials required, and reduce timelines for the review of applications to register reduced-risk minor use products. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will strengthen its program and financial support for the development and testing of minor use products. Such measures are urgently needed to facilitate timely grower access to safe and effective pest control products. Recognition of minor use status within the legislation would ensure that such commitments are met.

    In summary, on farmers and pesticide use overall, Ontario farmers have long been committed to reducing pesticide use and its associated risks. According to surveys conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, agricultural pesticide use, as measured by active ingredient, declined by more than 40% between 1983 and 1998, and it continues to drop. Associated risks to farm workers, consumers, and the environment have followed the same trend, declining by almost 40% between 1983 and 1998. At the same time crop yields have increased. These achievements are the result of grower education and training programs, the adoption of integrated pest management systems, and a variety of other factors. Instrumental in these reductions, however, has been the availability of more target-specific, environmentally benign products.

    If the proposed new Pest Control Products Act is to meet its primary mandate, it must facilitate access to newer, safer, more effective tools for controlling pests. That is the most effective way to minimize risk to people in the environment from the use of pest control products, while simultaneously ensuring the continued availability of an abundance of safe, high-quality, affordable Canadian-grown food.

    Thank you very much for the opportunity to present.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCabe.

    We'll now move on to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Mr. Jack Wilkinson, who is a member of the executive council and past president. He will be assisted by Nicole Howe, environmental policy analyst.

    Mr. Wilkinson.

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson (Member, Executive Council, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Thank you very much. I will do my best not to cover all the ground that AGCare has covered, because we obviously have a lot of similar points.

    The Canadian Federation of Agriculture brief was just finished the other day, so it hasn't been translated into French. I'll just highlight some points. We're told that the clerk will have it available for circulation to the full committee at a later date.

    The CFA is a national farm organization made up of approximately 200,000 farmers in the country. Currently, I'm president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which is a member, and on the executive of CFA.

    I think there are a number of points we would like to see captured within the preamble that currently are not there. I will just read four points briefly.

    The first is a statement to the effect that the introduction of new technology will not be inhibited by the legislation or regulations. I give further explanation in the brief, but our concern is that with the resources that are being used currently and have been for the last number of years and the re-evaluation, which is a commitment being made by the government, there are very few resources that have been set aside for bringing in and registering new products. We think that will be critical in the future. Minor use has already been talked about, but there's the whole area of new technology that will be coming on-board in pest management systems.

    Further, there needs to be a recognition within the preamble of the benefits not only for the agriculture community and environment, but for human health, the benefits of pest control products that mitigate the risk of pests to human health in the environment and society. We see that as a very strong indicator within the preamble, to give the appropriate balance in this legislation, saying that there are a significant number of benefits to not only the farm community and the production, but the entire food chain, up to the consumption side.

    Also, there should be a statement to recognize the need for timely access to safe and effective pest control products. Again, the point has been made by AGCare on the whole area of looking at evaluations and re-evaluations. Will this leave producers with an appropriate product balance, so that there will be a balance between the injury to those producers and the impact on the food chain from the withdrawal on a re-evaluation? And is it being done in a timely manner, so that it allows the industry to find new products that meet the new regulatory framework and the higher standards within that framework as they apply to reduced risk, both to users and the environment in general?

    Also, there needs to be a statement to indicate how the competitiveness between these products is being evaluated as part of the overall package.

    We believe the mandate should recognize the minister's responsibility to facilitate access to minor use. Again, there needs to be a special statement in that regard. Also, we should be promoting the harmonization with OECD countries to encourage Canadian registrations to expedite new products coming on line as we move towards harmonizing with other country jurisdictions, including the data accumulation requirements. Other points have already been raised in regard to similar climates and soil conditions. This way we can bring products on and use data from other countries that are in the same temperate and environment zones. Obviously, that becomes a critical aspect of this as well.

Á  (1120)  

    With the special review, even though we accept that it's an appropriate place for the minister to look at when the precautionary principle would apply, the European Union in particular, which is, obviously, many of the OECD countries, has had a history over the last number of years of using a host of tools applying to trade to limit products coming in from other countries, under the guise, as some of us see it anyway, of an exaggerated precautionary principle, to the point where just about anybody will raise their hand and say, until you can prove that this is absolutely safe and we have 20 years of history to prove this, no product should be brought in place. If the precautionary principle is going to be an aspect that can be used by OECD countries, there needs to be some caution given by the ministerial review with regard to what will happen during that review process, with other products available to the farmer. As well, the agrifood sector may use all sorts of protection materials other than herbicides and insecticides. Will that, in fact, stop the registration process of other products that are working their way through the system, when there may be other families of that product that may get stopped in their tracks because of a single country in the European Union putting a halt on the registration or withdrawing it?

    So we would like to see some parameters given to the minister as to how to apply that reaction from a country in the OECD withdrawing, with a number of different elements that the minister would look at before automatically pulling it off and holding a special review. We are not against that concept, we just think it needs to have a number of layers and transparencies before it automatically kicks into play. That we feel will be an increasingly larger problem, as witnessed with some of the European countries over the last number of years in regard to trade barriers.

    The resource question is something the PMRA has had to deal with for some time. Moving towards a database that allows harmonization with other jurisdictions, particularly with the EPA, and the re-evaluation time schedule the PMRA and the government looks at in this country do raise the question of how we can have the resources within the PMRA to deal with timely new products coming onto the market. That will be critical in having some flexibility for newer, safer products.

    We in the farm community are quite happy to have an aggressive review process that looks at older technology and re-evaluates it against a new standard available now within the world and within Canadian society with regard to environment, lower residues, higher ability to test. But that balance then needs to be put in place, so that we are really looking out into the future, determining where the products are down to basically zero or one, which is the case for many smaller use crops in this province and in this country, trying to identify that early, and starting an incentive-based program that is going to encourage a quick registration of a new safer product, so that we'll be able to meet the standard of society, the environmental standard, as well as being able to deal with the economic realities of producers, who in some cases are faced with the withdrawal of a product in the U.S. or Europe automatically triggering a re-evaluation here and possible withdrawal, with no other product available.

    So those are some of the issues we think need to be looked at as part of the package, to give balance within the preamble, to look at the positive side of what this legislation can do, as opposed to what we see as some weighting on the protection side, and to provide resource availability, so that new products can move through the system quickly, in particular with intensive pest management and minor use. That really should be given a very strong injection of capital and resources to bring newer, safer products on.

    Thank you very much.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson.

    We'll move on to the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, Mr. Chuck Beach, who is the first vice-president, assisted by Shannon Coombs, who is the director of government relations.

    Ms. Coombs.

    Ms. Shannon Coombs (Director, Government Relations, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association): Good morning, Madam Chair and members of Parliament.

    The Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association is delighted to be here today to present our key concerns and suggested recommendations to the Standing Committee on Health regarding Bill C-53. My name is Shannon Coombs. I'm director of government relations for CCSPA, and with me today is Mr. Chuck Beach from one of our member companies, S.C. Johnson, located in Brantford, Ontario. I'm going to provide the bulk of the presentation, and then give Chuck an opportunity to comment on one of his key concerns.

    We are pleased that the legislation has been tabled and amendments have been proposed for consideration. CCSPA has been supportive of tabling this legislation since the pesticide registration review team delivered its recommendations in the 1990 blue book. CCSPA has been and continues to be an active participant in all forms of discussion and consultation on the many issues falling within the purview of the PMRA. Currently, we are members of the minister's pest management advisory council, PMAC, and the executive director's economic management advisory committee, EMAC. Both of these forums offer an opportunity for stakeholders to improve overall public policy and management within the agency.

    First, I'd like to introduce our association. CCSPA is a national association representing industry, companies who are small-, medium- and large-scale manufacturers, processors, distributors of institutional and household cleaning products, soaps and detergents, sanitizers and disinfectants, deodorizers, pest control formulations, and automotive chemicals. These CCSPA member companies, who produce products regulated under the PCPA, are mostly end-use formulators. This sector is small and consolidating as the costs of business increase. They design and produce products based on fully and completely registered technical active ingredients and formulants. CCSPA members use less than 1% of all the active ingredients sold in Canada. Their perspective is focused on the production and delivery of the formulated products for consumers.

    What are the benefits of our products? Consumer pest control products are designed to contribute to a healthy urban landscape. The benefits they bring are based on protecting the health of Canadians in their homes, indoors and out, from insect-borne disease and allergies, insects, and weeds. Environmental benefits from healthy lawn and garden maintenance include reduced erosion and less water surface run-off.

    According to a recent Ipsos-Reid poll, the majority of Canadians believe the products used to control pests, insects, and weeds in and around the home are necessary and safe if used properly. Support for the products was strongest, with 84% agreeing that they are necessary and safe if used properly; 72% say this is so for products used on trees and shrubs, while 71% say the same for lawn and garden.

    Why does CCSPA have recommendations to improve the act? To provide these benefits to the Canadian public, our industry depends upon a predictable, rigorous, and timely registration system in Canada. In this country industry has to submit a quality submission with scientific integrity for screening and review by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The most modern scientific data to support the registration are required for the evaluation of the product's effectiveness and potential for adverse impact on human health in the natural environment. A system for these qualities provides confidence in the safety and the value of the tools that will continue to provide protection to Canadians and their homes.

    CCSPA has eight key concerns, as outlined in our brief and addendum, and in the interest of time, I'm going to focus on three matters: including in the PCPA definitions of reduced-risk, minor use, and natural and organically based product types; including timelines for registration of submissions in the act and having a proper report to Parliament; recommending to the committee appropriate next steps. CCSPA would like to develop with all stakeholders more prescriptive regulations to accompany the act. I offer the following rationales.

    CCSPA recommends to this committee the inclusion in the PCPA of the following definitions: reduced-risk, minor use, and natural and organically based product types. As well, we would like to have a registration process for these types of pest control products in a regulation or a PMRA directive. The new act outlines the intent and support for the development and registration of low-risk products in Canada, but they need more than a passing mention if they are truly going to be marketed in this country. With a definition for these product types, there will be new and different opportunities for industry and stakeholders to use newer, safer, and effective technologies and bring them to Canada. All three definitions provide certain incentives, but if they all had reduced timelines or a fast track approval process, I am confident all users would have access to more technology than they do now.

Á  (1130)  

    With regard to the definition of natural or organically based products, you may be wondering about our request to include such a definition. CCSPA supports offering Canadians a choice for pest control prevention in and around their homes. While consumers may wish to choose either synthetic pest control products or non-synthetic, it is critical to ensure that they use these products and they are proven to be safe and effective and to pose no harm to the environment. Without registration of these products, CCSPA is concerned that advocated use by consumers will lead to misuse and possible serious health effects. It is essential that the registration process equally challenge those substances considered natural or organic. Science tells us that even if a product is natural or organic, it can be as toxic as or more toxic than traditional chemicals. The World Health Organization acknowledged that “all the most poisonous materials so far known are, in fact, of natural origin.” In this committee's report on natural health products in 1998 you had guiding principles of safety, quality, access, and informed choice to help shape your recommendations, and we would ask that you use the same guiding principles to provide choice to Canadians in the pest control products they use.

    Our second point is including timelines for the registration of submissions in the act and having a proper report to Parliament. It is important that Canada have a responsive registration process, not just for the safety of Canadians, but for business to be competitive. Our formulators wish to bring new technology to the consumer, but we are often frustrated by the length and unpredictability of registration timelines. Not only have timelines frustrated us, but in 1999 the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported to the House of Commons many of the critical issues of currently registered products, including lengthy timelines. In 1998 Minister Rock initiated a third-party benchmark study, the Nephin report, and it highlighted that PMRA takes 40% longer to review products than other countries.

    Despite the best efforts of some to include performance standards in 1996, with the issuance of PMRA's management of submissions policy, the agency has not lived up to its potential. On a semi-annual basis, PMRA provides the latest statistics on their performance to EMAC. The numbers presented by the agency suggest a fairly positive outlook. However, the day-to-day grind within our member companies has indicated otherwise. CCSPA has gained access to the true PMRA timelines through access to information. What we've learned is shocking, yet somehow comforting. Our sense of service to client has been confirmed. Average approval times have increased across all categories of submission from 1998 to 2001. And besides not meeting the timelines of the management of submissions policy, PMRA's performance continues to deteriorate and industry's inability to protect approval time increases.

    Our member companies normally make category B and C product-type submissions to the agency. For category B, an example would be a formulation change, and category C is a type of submission for product registration that has reduced data requirements. According to the management of submissions policy, the timeline for a category B is one year and 11 months; according to our access to information data, PMRA's review time for this type of submission has increased by 119%. According to the management of submissions policy for category C, the maximum is one year 2.2 months; our access to information data indicate that PMRA's review time has increased by 82%.

    In short, this means the review time for the submission types most important to my member companies has doubled. Unpredictability in submission review times has significant business implications. CCSPA is requesting that this committee consider amending the act to include timelines for submissions. This requirement in the act will enhance the credibility and predictability of the registration process for all the stakeholders. As well, we are asking the committee to amend the annual report to include a provision for accounting of the performance standards met by the agency. An annual report was promised in 1997 in the PMRA's regulatory impact analysis for cost recovery, and it has yet to appear.

    Finally, the CCSPA supports fully transparent and strengthened regulatory process for PCP regulations. CCSPA supports the minister and her officials undertaking a stakeholder consultation, possibly through PMAC, prior to the publication of the proposed regulations in Gazette I. We make this request to ensure that Health Canada develops more prescriptive regulations for such things as consumer labelling and mandatory reporting.

    I would like to conclude with thanks to the committee for offering us an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Beach.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Chuck Beach (First Vice-President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association): Thank you for allowing me to present today. I come to you from Brantford, Ontario, on the shores of the mighty Grand River, the home of Joseph Brant, where Alexander Graham Bell made his first phone call, and importantly, the ancestral home of the current member from Brant, Jane Stewart--and even more importantly, the home of Wayne Gretzky.

    I work for a company called S.C. Johnson & Son, Limited. My company makes domestic consumer products. In 1989, as a budding young chemist, I was chosen by my industry colleagues to represent them on the federal pesticide registration review. This was one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my life. I was honoured to serve my industry and my government. For this exercise, the federal government assembled a diverse group of stakeholders to review the pest control products regulatory system of the time and make recommendations on what changes were needed. At the end of the exercise, after 21 meetings, cross-country consultations, interaction with provincial and territorial governments, a hard-won consensus was reached, one that was perhaps a little hard to swallow for all the stakeholders at the table, but the participants recognized that in compromise, we were moving the ball forward.The recommendations of this review committee were presented to the federal government for consideration in 1990. The final report is called the blue book.

    The recommendations of this blue book laid the foundation for the creation of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, numerous regulatory changes, and today's exercise, the revision of the Pest Control Products Act. In reaching a consensus, the federal pesticide registration review committee achieved a fine balance that met the needs of all stakeholders. Some four years later, in 1994, as a member of the interim pesticides advisory committee, I had the privilege of being invited to Ottawa one evening to hear first-hand the federal government's response to the review committee's recommendations. At that meeting parliamentary secretaries Hedy Fry, Clifford Lincoln, Lyle Vanclief, and George Rideout provided an overview of the government's response to the federal pesticide registration review committee's recommendations.

    The government's response, contained in the purple book, was marching orders for the bureaucrats to fashion a revised system and amend the Pest Control Products Act. I think it can be said with some accuracy that the government embraced the vast majority of the recommendations of the committee I served on. Today I am gratified to finally see the act and the system I worked so hard to create over 11 years ago come to Parliament. I do, however, have a concern I would like to raise.

    I am concerned that the previously agreed legislative support for my industry has been lost. Over 11 years ago the blue book's statement of objective for a proposed pesticide management act detailed an act that, in addition to protecting health safety in the environment, supported access to pest management tools, namely, pest control products and pest management strategies. Eight years ago the purple book outlined the goals and attributes of the regulatory system. In addition to the laudable goals of protecting health, safety, and the environment, the government included support for competitiveness in agriculture, forestry, other resource sectors, and manufacturing. As I review the primary objective of the proposed act and the ancillary objectives, it is my opinion that the fine balance achieved over 11 years ago and the goals and attributes of the system the government agreed to some 8 years ago have been shifted away from the needs I fought for.

    I would ask the health committee to help restore the balance, to include in the preamble and the mandate of this new act objectives that support business sectors. This will ensure that for the next few years at least, as new regulations are crafted, the needs of all stakeholders are considered.

    Thank you very much.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Coombs and Mr. Beach.

    We will now move on to CropLife Canada, Mr. Lorne Hepworth, the president, and Mr. Peter MacLeod, executive director.

    Mr. Hepworth.

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth (President, CropLife Canada): Madam Chair and members of the committee, in addition to speaking on behalf of CropLife Canada, I'm also here today to speak on behalf of our Urban Pest Management Council. By way of background, CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers, and distributors of pesticides and GMO crops in Canada. The Urban Pest Management Council represents the pesticide industry for uses in the urban and non-agricultural market.

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on Bill C-53. We have provided a detailed brief with our comments and suggested improvements for this bill. In addition to the body of the text, you will see several appendices at the back. These are the amendments, some 11 in all, we are recommending for your consideration. Time does not permit me to cover all that is in the brief, so I will confine my remarks to the areas we would particularly highlight for you.

    Members of the committee, over the past year our industry has spent a great deal of time thinking about and articulating more clearly what we, as an industry, stand for. To that end, we have analysed this legislation through the lens of what we stand for, to see how it aligns with these basic tenets, tenets we believe the public shares. What are these basic tenets that we stand for and believe in?

    As an industry, we stand for safety and innovation. We stand for protection of human health and the environment, a rigorous science-based regulatory system, and an informed public. We stand for enhancing the quality of life through the benefits of our technology and realizing that competitive advantage for Canadian farmers and other users of our products. We stand for the use of integrated pest management, using the right pest management tool at the right time and the right place in the right way. Everything we stand for is based on a foundation of continuous research and responsible stewardship.

    Not surprisingly, then, we are highly supportive of numerous provisions in the bill. First and foremost, we support the increased protection for human health and the environment. This bill brings into legislation many of the current scientific policies and practices of both industry and government, policies that ensure that infants and children are protected, policies that take into account pesticide exposure from all sources, and policies that take into consideration cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way.

    We support greater openness and transparency in the registration system, so that the public may be more fully informed. Through the use of proposed regulatory decision documents, the public will be able to see summaries of evaluation reports that propose decisions and, importantly, to comment on them.

    We are supportive of the provision for a “reading room”. Here, under certain conditions, some of which we'll be enlarging on later, individuals can view all of a company's confidential test data used in support of its registration.

    The above measures, ones our members support, take public disclosure and accountability into significant new and largely uncharted territory in Canada. As you can see, we have a high degree of alignment between what we stand for as an industry and the provisions of this bill in these very key areas.

    But, members of the committee, where the legislation falls short is in failing to include incentives. In fact, it creates disincentives for bringing in new, reduced-risk products to Canada for both agricultural and non-agricultural use.

    Five key elements illustrate how this legislation fails in this regard. The legislation offers no channel for expediting the entry of reduced-risk products into the marketplace. Second, the bill does not get the balance right between Canadians' desire for information and protecting intellectual property that is confidential business information. Third, the legislation makes no provision for minor use products. Fourth, there are no provisions to improve the performance and accountability of the regulatory agency. And finally, the legislation fails to fully align itself with the similar health and safety legislation of our major trading partner, the United States. I'll speak briefly to each of these five items.

    One method of improving protection for human health and the environment is through the expedited introduction of reduced-risk products. Our industry's commitment to innovation and continuous research is resulting in more new, reduced-risk products. The bill in its current form has no direct provisions for expediting the registration of these valuable products. Although the goal of the Pest Control Products Act is greater alignment with current global scientific evaluation practices, and it is quite clear that this act borrows extensively from its American counterpart, the incentives for introducing reduced-risk products in the United States Food Quality Protection Act were not adopted in this legislation. In our brief we have provided an amendment, complete with legislative wording similar to that found in the Food Quality Protection Act, that, if accepted, would specifically define the criteria under which a product would qualify for an expedited review as a reduced-risk product.

Á  (1145)  

    The second area of concern is with some of the provisions related to public and business information. We support providing Canadians with information about our products, their scientific basis, and how they are regulated. We know that a balance can be struck between Canadians' desire for information and protecting intellectual property, an important incentive for innovation and investment. We believe the act in its current form does not get the balance right. For example, our industry has less protection of confidential business information than is provided in other environmental health legislation, such as CEPA 1999. We have recommended amendments that will ensure that those who view confidential test data in the reading room cannot disclose such information to others who would use it for commercial benefit and amendments that will align confidential business information protection with that in the United States and Canada's Access to Information Act. We also ask that we have the right to be consulted about disclosing this information before it is released.

    The third critical area where this act fails to align itself with our major trading partners is with minor use products. Although we are a large country, Canada is a small market, representing only 3% of global pesticide sales. For specialty crops or localized pest infestations, it is often uneconomical for a company to register a pest control product that would have limited use in Canada. The result is that our farmers, growers, professionals, and homeowners may not have the right tools available to them. Fruit and vegetable farmers have faced a technology gap for years. They have now been joined by other growers of specialty crops, such as lentils, chick peas, and buckwheat. What of the future of farming, when we will be contemplating whether growers have the tools to manage pests in micro use crops, crops grown for their medicinal value, such as vaccines, functional foods, and nutraceuticals, crops with the value of perhaps $200,000 per acre, not today's $200 per acre, crops not only important to the future well-being of agriculture, but to the future of health care in Canada? The latter, I would argue, is an important consideration for this committee. To ensure that Canadians have access to these minor and micro use products now and into the future, we are recommending an amendment with legislative wording, similar to that found in the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, that would provide for improved availability for these all important minor use products.

    The new act places additional requirements on industry to be accountable, demonstrating value, releasing information, and being subjected to reviews requested by citizens. Our industry is prepared to accept all of these, because we believe that more accountability will result in Canadians having greater confidence in the regulatory system and our products, but there must be a balance. For Canadians to have confidence in the regulatory system, regulators too must be accountable. Here the act does not go far enough. We have proposed an amendment that would align the reporting requirements with those provided for in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, which includes a corporate business plan and annual report.

    Finally, we call for alignment with our closest trading partner, the United States. We encourage alignment because we support farmers, applicators, and our member companies realizing their competitive advantage from the newest innovations in pest management. Alignment in the areas of reduced-risk, minor use, and protection of confidential business information will result in an efficient regulatory system, ensuring that new technologies and products are available to Canadians at the same time as our major trading partners.

    With these proposed amendments, members of the committee have an opportunity to ensure that the act not only benefits health and environment, but also enhances innovation.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and members

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hepworth.

    We'll move to questioning by members now, and we'll begin with the official opposition in the person of Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank you all for coming and giving us your input on this important piece of legislation.

    I can sense from your presentations--I think it's collective--that you have some discomfort with the preamble and the intent of the bill, where it seems to be one-sided towards health and safety, without looking strongly enough at the benefits and the safety of using pesticides in Canada.

    Also, you, collectively, are saying we need some harmonization with our trading partners, particularly with the United States and OECD nations. Is there a drawback you can see from harmonization with the United States, or is it all just a positive thing?

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: Our farmers are being asked to compete in global, and certainly in North American, markets. Right now I think they have one hand behind their backs. They're handcuffed, if you like, especially as it relates to a couple of these areas we talked about, minor use and reduced-risk products. So that's the advantage for the farmer. For the regulator and for society, I think the other advantage of harmonization and drawing on the global resources that are available, not only in North America, but elsewhere in the world, is the use of the best and latest international science to make the regulatory decisions and evaluations here in Canada. I see much to gain on both counts.

    Having said all that, I don't think anybody here is recommending that somehow Canada's sovereignty as a nation should be put aside in respect of having the final say on the registration. I think there's a substantial upside for the regulators, helping them make their reviews, and in making sure farmers have the tools needed to do their job.

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Part of the Canada-U.S. negotiations and what followed NAFTA was really a reduction of protection from imports as a Canadian producer, i.e., the tariffs disappeared over a phase-out period of ten years. In return, we were promised that the whole question of harmonization of plant protection material would be a key priority for the government. If we're going to interconnect the whole food system, which I think is, to a great extent, taking place in North America and is growing rapidly globally, why would we not harmonize the plant protection material side of that food system?

    It has been quite frustrating over the last number of years, where attempts have been made to work with PMRA, work with the government on this issue, work within the PMAC and EMAC committees towards this. Some progress has been made, but there has been a widening of the gap, in particular with minor use products. We've had a loss of some 160 ingredients, apparently, in Canada over this period, and we are not getting the new products. In fact, we have some minor use crops that, effectively, have only one product left. As a farmer, you need to work a rotational system, using different families of plant protection material, if you want to deal with resistance, on insect damage, fungi, and weeds. If you only have one product left, you are creating for yourself, agronomically, a problem as a producer. So we need to see this expand, not shrink back further.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: You've all identified problems with PMRA. Is it doing too thorough a job that's taking longer, is it just an inefficient operation, is it lack of funding, or a combination? What is your feeling?

    Mr. Craig Hunter (Technical Advisor, AGCare): Keep going.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: All that and more?

    Mr. Craig Hunter: If the same products we're talking about can get approved by EPA, there cannot be a scientific barrier to approval. So there must be another barrier, and you've named some of the possibilities.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you. I appreciate that.

    Does anyone else want to comment on PMRA?

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson: We're attempting to be polite. It's been extremely frustrating. You can look at the number of times the PMRA has been brought in front of agriculture committees and other committees to try to resolve the problems. There are major agriculture task forces where the slowness to register product is still a key item. For example, there was a press release by one of your members, Mr. Speller, and the task force where PMRA was listed over and over again as still a major problem area that faces agricultural producers in the ability to get new product in a timely and effective manner that will meet our needs. So it's been an ongoing problem with a number of elements, and we just think it needs to be highlighted in this report, to give the balance.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Howard.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): One of the suggestions that's been thrown around a bit in regard to the PMRA is to have an ombudsman appointed. I'd ask, I guess, Lorne and Craig. Is that a good idea? Do you see that solving some of the problems you've raised?

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: It's a notion that's worth considering, but before we go down that track, or at the same time we go down that track, I think we need to address some of these fundamental issues, like minor use, the reduced-risk, some of those areas. Then maybe there'd be less need for that kind of process.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): One of the suggestions that's been thrown around a bit in regard to the PMRA is to have an ombudsman appointed. I'd ask, I guess, Lorne and Craig. Is that a good idea? Do you see that solving some of the problems you've raised?

    Mr. Craig Hunter: I'd be glad to.

    The Canadian Horticultural Council made a presentation in this room to the Standing Committee on Agriculture back in November where we listed a number of solutions to the problems we saw, particularly in the minor use area. We made a suggestion in that document about having an ombudsman, as an ombudsman would bring a chance to have an impartial body in place for appeal on particular issues and for the big picture. The model we used was from the EPA, where they have that kind of position. We felt, in our frustration, that would be a good thing to put in place, a person accountable to someone, obviously, outside the agency and who we felt was able to deal with all parties, not just with PMRA. They have to be able to deal with us, because we're not always reasonable, but we try to be balanced. So we thought having an ombudsman-type position would allow us to have a court of appeal to deal with issues immediately, rather than having a prolonged process.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Were you not a little concerned, though, that this would just be another delay? The PMRA or the minister could say, the ombudsman's handling this, and once they report, we'll do something. I'm just concerned about more regulation. Jack can comment a little bit, but the rubber hits the road somewhere in any organization. In politics it starts with the minister, and then, of course, goes down to the director, and this sort of thing.

    Jack, what about that? You've mentioned accountability in the PMRA. What could do they do, other than the minister taking a major initiative, to make something happen and change?

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson: I think the committee has the opportunity here to try to strike the balance that's been raised by the presenters here this morning. We would like to see listed in the preamble some of the plus sides that could give balance in this legislation. I think, if the committee were able to make those amendments to the bill and it passed, it would send a signal very clearly to PMRA and all parties that there needed to be resources put in. It would highlight the minor use side of the activity, the benefit for quickly registering low-risk products. If all those were dealt with by this committee, I think that would go a long way to sending a very clear signal to the PMRA as to the type of balance that was wanted. If, at the end of the day, through all this work, you still don't have the balance and the response, we would have to look at something like an ombudsman. But I do agree that we should fix what we have in front of us within our capacity now, get the proper balance, and, hopefully, everybody would take their marching orders from the new legislation.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: My last question is to Shannon. Could you comment a little on the subjectiveness, in my opinion, of the precautionary principle that is going to be used in here? Is it a subjective thing, or is it something you can actually put your hands on and say, I know exactly what it is, and this will improve this legislation, or, it'll cause us problems?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: As an industry association, we support the use of the precautionary principle. In 1999 PMAC was asked about the precautionary principle and how it would be used. It's clearly outlined in the act exactly where it would be used. We're quite comfortable with where it is in the legislation currently.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

    We'll move on to Mr. Dromisky now.

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

    I'm going to get right to the point without any preamble. Regarding all these companies that produce pesticides in Canada, who owns the majority of them? Are they foreign-owned, or Canadian-owned, American-owned? Are they subsidiaries and branch factories of American companies?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: The companies CCSPA represents are a mix of all three. Some are privately owned, some are multinationals, some are Canadian.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: The majority are multinationals?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: No, I wouldn't say the majority.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: My question is leading towards harmonization. I'm a little bit concerned about this perfect harmonization you are requesting, because we have different benchmarks in each country as to what is a safe level and what is not. In the United States in the past, because of public pressure and actual scientific evidence, certain chemicals were banned on the general market for agricultural purposes and whatever, yet those very products were distributed to third world countries through foreign aid programs. Companies actually sold to third world countries and other countries in the world products that were banned in the United States. I am a little bit suspicious about that kind of thing. What kind of controls can we have in this country against something like that happening, when we talk about perfect harmonization? We must have our safeguards, there's no doubt about it. I'm not saying that kind of scenario will be played out in this country, because maybe we're very diligent in our examination process of testing and analysis and everything else. In other words, we have the tools to do the job properly.

    If we go for perfect harmonization, what impact would that have on our trading relationships for food products and so forth with other countries, such as Japan and the European Union?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: I think Lorne would be better able to answer that question.

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: You raise a number of points. With harmonization, nobody wants to go to the lowest common denominator. Canada is a signatory to lots of conventions about products that are banned etc. The legislation has been very explicit about borrowing, for example, from the Food Quality Protection Act in some important areas we agree with: the safety factor for children, the accumulated risk, the aggregate risk, international science. These are not lowering the benchmark, but raising it, and now this is enshrined. If it is good enough to take environment, health, and safety concerns and raise the level up a notch, enshrine it in legislation, we say, given good science, why don't we take that same kind of approach relative to reduced-risk and minor use and entrench it in legislation here, so we can continue to not only have the highest protections for health and safety, but also make sure we have the innovations that can be better for the Canadian public, as well as for the Canadian farmer? So I don't see us notching us down to the lowest common denominator at all.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Well, that's my chief concern, a move in that direction. However, I have other questions I would like to get through.

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: And there is the protection in the legislation in the export control list to be formed, which maybe would address some of the dimensions you're concerned about.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: About 90% of the chemicals are being produced for agricultural use and about 10% for urban use, lawns and so forth. Is that true?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: The member companies I represent make strictly pest control products designed for consumer use, the products you buy at Home Depot and Canadian Tire, and they come to less than 1%. Actually, it's 0.8% of all the active ingredients sold in Canada.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: That's interesting.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: We talk about small use, and there may be only one product approved for small use purposes. What incentive would there be for any company to do research and spend a heck of a lot of money trying to find an optional small use chemical? What incentives would you recommend to government to encourage companies to go ahead with expensive, extensive research to meet the demands of a small use market?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: We can speak to the consumer use. Chuck, go ahead.

    Mr. Chuck Beach: If I'm looking for new active ingredients--and I don't make the active ingredients, I buy them from active ingredients supplier companies--what I'm finding is that the companies won't come to Canada, certainly not first, because they're concerned that the PMRA might come up with something a little different from what they expected, given the EPA. Also, our growing season for bugs is about half that of the United States. Our cost to register products is more than in the United States, yet we're doing one tenth of the volume. There's not much incentive. I'm finding that active ingredient registrants for my sector won't come to Canada. There's no real incentive, you're quite right.

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: That's why we're asking for timelines to be implemented in the act.

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson: If I could make a comment, for a farmer using the product there may be a small acreage crop. There's a list of them, onions, carrots, all sorts of crops where there's relatively low acreage in this country used. That is the fundamental problem. When someone looks at a registration system that's different, may require different data, a host of other areas, the cost of producing that and doing the testing is such that they just say they're not going to bother registering that product here.

    If the climatic conditions are similar, if the environment is similar, if it's on the same crop, particularly when this act is passed, many of the elements we test will be identical to those in the U.S. That is where we ask the basic question. Why would we not try to harmonize that regulatory system, so that if there's a new product coming on line, there'll be a very quick look at it? If it's passed in other jurisdictions with similar climate and environment, we would then make it available for use by the producer in this country.

    If we don't take a different approach to this, we'll find that crop will simply not be grown here. It's not that people are going to stop eating onions in Canada, we'll just import them all. This is a reality in life. If we cannot supply people with plant protection material to deal with a wet year when we have all sorts of diseases on plants, to protect that crop in a cost-effective way, that acreage in this country will continue to decrease to the point where the crop isn't grown, and we then import. All we can do at that point is test for residue levels, knowing full well that we do scanty testing for residue levels on imports. Why wouldn't we try to find a way, through a very thorough system still, of making that new, lower-risk product available to our producers, rather than having the negative economic impact of those people not growing that crop any more?

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

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

    I would like, first of all, to thank you for appearing before us and to excuse my late arrival. I was at another meeting with some of my colleagues from this committee.

    Obviously, the use of pesticides by the agricultural community has changed drastically over the last few years. Indeed, we have seen a 41% decrease in the use of pesticides in Ontario. Clearly, there is a will to move in the right direction.

    I wonder if you are aware of the model that has been put in place in Europe. Governments have been giving financial incentives to farmers who decide that they will no longer use pesticides on their land. Therefore, I would like you to tell us if, first of all, you are aware of this model that has been developed in Europe. Secondly, do you think it could be implemented here, in Canada, and do you think that it might be used as part of a meaningful pest control strategy?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. McCabe.

    Mr. Don McCabe: Thank you.

    We are aware of the model in Europe. I would also like to stress that the European Union has an entirely different system of agriculture when it comes to how it supports its producers. They use a different methodology. I don't see a reason for it to come to Canada at this time, as we've already illustrated that we've reduced our usage of pesticide by 40%, when given the opportunity for new more target-specific pesticides that have been properly passed.

    The move towards organic agriculture in Europe is their choice, and I would stress that organic agriculture is a trend or opportunity, I would not necessarily call it a mode of agriculture. As an active producer, I don't use pesticides as a choice. If I can get away from using them and get away with the smallest amount possible, that's going to help my bottom line. To bring a model of that European nature over here, to put even more incentives and paperwork on top of our current producers, who are already doing a good job without it, I think is not required, nor should it be a focus of this particular act. If you're going to bring that over, I would suggest that you also open up the coffers when it comes to a number of other areas.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will ask you a different question. Supply and demand may change. People may want to getmore and more organic products. Do you believe that this model could and should be put in place in Canada if there is an increase demand for organic products?

[English]

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson: It seems to me that there already is a growing demand in some areas for organic. A number of years ago there was an attempt in some of the very large retail and wholesale chains to move organic product, following surveys of consumers, but most of those stores walked away from it, and it moved back into the ranks of specialty shops. And just recently, a couple of large chain stores have aggressively moved into the sale of organics, which normally indicates there's more than a 3% market.

    There are producers in Canada right now who have lined themselves up to produce organic products. They see a market premium there, and so they change the farm production methodology, for example, producing milk for the organic yogurt market in B.C.; I know of a gentlemen who's got a 120 cow herd. Various crops across all of Canada have moved to responding to an organic need. The simple fact of the matter so far in this country is that with most products, it's less than 3%. I think Don's point is that if we moved to a point where you have a very substantial part of your market demanding that, we would have to look at some things differently. But to date it's been a relatively small market, for which there have been an ample number of producers who've certified themselves as organic producers, who are also farmers we represent.

    The question, I think, will be, over time, how much Europe moves, whether it moves 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%. Not all countries have put the resources behind it. Germany is one, and some others have specifically targeted that. I think time will tell just how large a percentage of production will be required to fill that supply.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    We'll go to Mr. Speller now.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Sir, I think that...

[English]

    The Chair: I'm sorry, your time is up.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, but I think that he wanted to reply.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm sorry, but if the answers take up your time, it's still your time that's gone.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, Lib.): Madam Chair, I have a couple of questions. I'll follow up on that with Ms. Coombs.

    You mentioned the importance of making sure natural and organically based were defined. Why do you think that's important? Why is it critical to do that?

    Ms. Shannon Coombs: We feel very strongly that the natural ingredients that have been advocated for use by homeowners should be tested to the same degree as synthetic, more traditional chemicals. There are many naturally occurring toxins in the garden, including many common plants, such as chrysanthemums, daffodils, holly, ivy, and rhubarb leaves.

    If you'll indulge me for a moment, I have the CBC website, which is advocating alternative uses of pesticides to homeowners, and one of the concoctions, or home brews, as we call them, is for rhubarb insecticide. You boil rhubarb leaves in a few pints of water, and then strain into a suitable container. This will kill all kinds of bugs, like aphids and spider mites. It has a note that says “rhubarb leaves contain high amounts of oxalic acid, and if ingested, your heart will stop and you will die.” We're very worried about this, and as a result, we had CANTOX do a literature review search on rhubarb leaves. The review search came back and it said “symptoms following the ingestion of rhubarb leaves include stomach pains, nausea, vomiting, weakness, burning of the mouth, internal bleeding, coma, and death.

    We think, if consumers are going to have a choice to use synthetic or non-synthetic, they have to be aware of all the risks of the products, and we would wish to have a definition in the act, a registration process, and a fast-track timeline, if that's appropriate for those products.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Right, thank you.

    I want to ask a question of Mr. Hunter. It's a very good presentation--he's a constituent, by the way, so I have to say that.

    You say here, “It is inconsistent to use the pest control product registration decisions made in other jurisdictions to prompt reviews and product withdrawals without also accepting them as a trigger for potential approvals.” Could you go further in explaining that?

    Mr. Craig Hunter: Thanks for the question, Mr. Speller.

    We feel the balance here is important. If we are willing to accept the scientific regulatory decision of another country to eliminate the use of a product, we feel it is logical that we should also feel comfortable with the same scientific regulatory approval process to register products in the first place. Currently, we're sitting at about 160 active ingredients behind our biggest competitor and trading partner, the U.S. If they decide they want to remove a product, they being an OECD nation, we would like to see the opportunity, using the same logic, to register all 160 of the products they enjoy and can use that are approved by an authority we believe in. Balance is what we're looking for.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I notice, Mr. Wilkinson, you too talked about balance in your presentation, and I appreciate your putting that forward. The question I have for you, though, is, how do we get more, particularly American, firms to actually register products here in Canada? That's one of the problems, isn't it, that they're just not registering them? What do we need to do that?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Jack Wilkinson: I think some of the points were made by the presenters. We need to put some incentives into this act to give the balance that would allow for a fast-track approach for products that are substantially risk-lowering for the user, the environment, the consumer. We should move enough resources into the PMRA that we can not only deal with the re-evaluation schedule that's been put forward, but also deal with the new minor use products that are coming on line and harmonize the data bank as closely as we can with that jurisdiction, so that it really becomes not a whole new list of costs that a company has to put forward to, say, move into a minor use crop, but we've got things lined up. The same data as are put forward to EPA are put forward to PMRA, and then we put the staff in PMRA, so they can look at that in a timely way. If we give deadlines and timelines, that company will know it's not going to be exorbitant in cost or require new tests when they make application. We'll still be reviewing many of them, but it will be done in a very timely way and they'll know the data bank required. With this, we hope many companies will automatically make application for that same product in this country. Thus there'll be minimal cost, so we think it'll happen.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

    Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

    I'd like to follow up Lorne Hepworth's comments about reduced-risk product. It seems to me that's an area where there is some common understanding between health activists, environmentalists, and the agricultural sector, if I understand what you're saying correctly. Is this, in fact, the idea of entrenching within legislation the substitution principle, so that as new products that are documented to be less risky and safer become available, we have a mechanism in the legislation to ensure that substitution takes place and we actually encourage that whole process? I need a clarification on that.

    Second, if that is the case, why isn't it happening now? It just seems to make so much sense. Where are the obstacles to that? What do we need to do in this process to ensure that it happens?

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: I'd like to divide it into two parts. One is the reduced-risk, and then there's the substitution principle or the comparative risk issue you raise.

    With the reduced-risk, what we're suggesting is enshrining in legislation some of the same principles as are in place and defining the criteria that are in place through the Food Quality Protection Act. And some of the things Jack just mentioned about use of data, data evaluations, and data packages would help expedite those reduced-risk registrations.

    You'll see in our package of amendments that we do have some comments on comparative risk. For reasons of sustainable agricultural practices, what we would like to see is a little more specificity. Right now, probably, there's a little too much “trust me” in the legislation. I may trust the officials in this current government, but 10 years from now where might we be? If you get carried away recklessly, if you like, with that principle, it could take you to the point where farmers have fewer tools, and more tools are important for integrated pest management and for resistance management. If I were a farmer, I'd like to be able to buy the same product from several sources, not just one. So you start to have the regulator become a juror in some areas that I would argue should be left to the marketplace. So there need to be some additional safeguards built in to make sure a well-intentioned piece doesn't run awry. The recommendation we have, by way of amendment, is that the Minister of Agriculture not “may”, but “shall” be consulted on that point.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Would you support this substitution principle being included in legislation?

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: That amendment we think would improve it. You assume you're going to get some practical interpretation and implementation of it. It would make it a better provision. Yet it still has to be extremely carefully applied, so that you don't run into these problems I talked about earlier.

    Ms. Nicole Howe (Environmental Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): CFA, as much we promote reduced-risk products coming on the market and having incentives for those, looks at the comparative risk assessment as two separate issues. We have some concerns with the comparative risk assessment as it is in the act right now. As has been mentioned, we are already down 160 actives that aren't available in Canada, but are available to our partners. If we starting taking the principle that for every new product coming on, more product goes off, we're just, again, reducing the number of tools producers have available to them. As has been mentioned, in a pest management system you need a variety of products to choose from. If we start to limit them so much that there are only one or two available, we can't really tackle the problem at hand. In the act already there are five ways I can think of off the top of my head to take a product off the shelf. Do we really need one more?

    Mr. Chuck Beach: I believe, if we have clear criteria for what's acceptable risk and we submit data that say the product is of acceptable risk, we don't really need the federal government infringing upon the free market.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Basically, to pick up on the point that was made, you're saying that if the company presents data to show minimum risk, this should be accepted by government. It should be good enough. Company data are adequate precaution for Canadians on safety. Was that what I just heard you say?

    Mr. Chuck Beach: What I'm saying is that there are clear criteria for registration of products, and if a company submits data that meet the criteria, the product should be registered. If we set out boundaries on what level of risk we're going to accept for Canadians and your data meet those criteria, you should be allowed into the marketplace.

    Mr. Lorne Hepworth: Can I just pick up on that? We need very specific amendments, just to make sure everybody is clear that somehow reduced-risk doesn't mean reduced protection for the environment and the public. What we're recommending is the language that's found in the Food Quality Protection Act:

and shall expedite a review of any pest control product that may reasonably be expected to pose lower risks by accomplishing one or more of the following:

(a) reducing risks to human health;

(b) reducing risks to non-target organisms;

(c) reducing the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental resources;

(d) encouraging the development or implementation of integrated pest management strategies.

    The last is important, I would argue. That's good agricultural practice and proper protection of the environment, health, and safety.

    The Chair: Seeing no more questioners this afternoon, I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming and for their very clear presentations. We'll await the ones we don't have from the translation department. We always reserve the right to ask you to come back again if certain problems arise and we feel you are the people to help us resolve them. Thank you very much for your time and effort today.

    This meeting is now adjourned.