HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 25, 2002

Á

1105

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

Dr. Kapil Khatter (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Don Houston (Director, Environmental Programs, Canadian Institute of Child Health)

Á

1115

The Chair

Dr. Robert Cushman (Medical Officer of Health, City of Ottawa; Canadian Public Health Association)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Schwartz (Manager, Environment and Child Health Program, Pollution Probe)

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Á

1140

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Dr. Robert Cushman

Á

1145

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ)

Á

1150

Dr. Robert Cushman

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Robert Cushman

Á

1155

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

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

Mr. Don Houston

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Â

1200

Mr. Don Houston

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Don Houston

The Chair

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

Â

1205

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Dr. Robert Cushman

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Mr. Don Houston

The Chair

Mr. Castonguay

Â

1210

Dr. Robert Cushman

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Dr. Robert Cushman

The Chair

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Robert Cushman

Â

1215

Mr. Don Houston

Ms. Carol Skelton

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Don Houston

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Ms. Hedy Fry

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Â

1220

The Chair

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

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Â

1225

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Kapil Khatter

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Â

1230

Mr. Don Houston

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Don Houston

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Don Houston

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Dr. Robert Cushman

Â

1235

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Dr. Robert Cushman

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Sandra Schwartz

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 071

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Health to order and to welcome as our guests this morning representatives from four institutions. From the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment we have Kapil Khatter, executive director. From the Canadian Institute of Child Health we have Don Houston, director, environmental programs. From the Canadian Public Health Association we have Robert Cushman, medical officer of health, City of Ottawa. From Pollution Probe we have Sandra Schwartz, manager, environment and child health program.

    We'll begin this morning with the presentation from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Mr. Khatter.

    Dr. Kapil Khatter (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm Kapil Khatter, a family physician and the executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

    At risk of using up my valuable time and burning my welcome here, I just wanted to first express my dismay at the speed at which this process is going through. We're basically a group of mostly full-time physicians, and our pesticide expert and the president of our organization was not able to come because we were given one week's notice and one date and time to present, and we weren't able to do that. We just hope this is an opportunity for us to help you to make a better act and not just an opportunity for us to sound off.

    But we are here today and we do want to talk about issues around public participation and how important it is that there is public participation in this act. We really applaud that, but it's important that the public participation is meaningful, that it's not just an opportunity to appease the public but a meaningful opportunity to tap into what the values and views of Canadians are around pesticides and pesticide approvals.

    As a doctors' group, we're most concerned about human health, in particular children's health. We don't feel that the bill, as it's written right now, does protect children's health adequately. It has borrowed from the American Food Quality Protection Act in bringing in a tenfold safety factor, but the tenfold safety factor is discretionary, as in the U.S. The experience we've seen in the U.S. since 1996, when that act came in, is that because that factor is discretionary, it's hardly used. We feel that because children are more exposed for their body weight, because they have a longer lifetime exposure in front of them, because their systems aren't well developed, that safety factor needs to be mandatory.

    The Canadian legislation, our proposed bill, is also weaker than the Food Quality Protection Act in that it restricts the use of this safety factor only to situations where pesticides are used in homes and schools. That's not in the American model, and we're concerned about that as well. We think the safety factors should be applied all the time to all pesticides, regardless of whether they're used in homes and schools or not, because children are still exposed through food residues and drinking water, and certainly farm families have children as well.

    The fact that the tenfold safety factor is discretionary leaves an opportunity for manufacturers to lobby for safety factors they're more comfortable with. We would like to see it be mandatory. In fact, we feel a tenfold safety factor is probably a minimum standard in terms of really protecting health.

    We think that's important in the registration section. There are other things that are important and are missing--for instance, the lack of a precautionary principle in the registration section. We think that is important and it does make a difference to have the precautionary principle in there.

    Assessments are generally done as calculations. We estimate what the potential exposure is of a pesticide and we estimate what the safe level likely is, based on animal studies. Those are estimations. If the numbers don't work out, if the exposure level that's estimated is slightly below what we think the safety level is, then we don't have any way of restricting a registration without a clause like a precautionary principle clause that allows us, as the World Trade Organization agreements say, to set our own level, our own standard of safety. We need something like a precautionary principle clause in there, so that we can decide for ourselves as a society whether....

    Even with the uncertainties, if the assessment says there may not be a risk, if there is a potential risk, if there's another product on the market that can do the same thing as the product we're looking at, if kids will get exposed a lot, if we know this pesticide will probably stick around, then we want to be able to make a precautionary decision that we don't need this pesticide, because we have other alternatives we can use.

    In general, what we want to see is a movement towards reducing pesticide use in general and towards bringing in lower-risk alternatives. Importantly, we want to see specific restrictions on substances that we all know are harmful or problematic. So track one substance from the toxic substances management policy: persistent organic pollutants--substances, pesticides, and products that are considered to be endocrine disrupters.

Á  (1110)  

    Finally, in terms of the registration, as much as evaluations and the way evaluations are done changes over time and you cannot entrench the entire evaluation in an act, we do think you need to put in the minimum standards for an evaluation. So the basic standard health points you would want to look at in an evaluation need to be in the act. The basic number of studies we would like to see looked at should be in the act, as well. There is not enough detail in the registration section.

    Finally, I just want to talk about transparency and the importance of mandatory reporting. That needs to be strengthened. There is a mandatory reporting section in the bill, but it does not prescribe what kinds of things need to be reported on environmental health risks. Most importantly, what the minister decides is not of consequence does not have to be made public. If it is determined there should be a special review of a product because an adverse effect is reported, that becomes public, but there is no public oversight when the minister decides that whatever information they've received is unimportant. We think that public oversight is essential.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Khatter.

    We'll go on to Mr. Houston, from the Canadian Institute of Child Health.

    Mr. Don Houston (Director, Environmental Programs, Canadian Institute of Child Health): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-53 has provisions in it in a number of areas that we fully support. The minister is to be congratulated on making some progress in those areas.

    We also believe there are some missed opportunities and deficiencies. On the whole, the movement is more or less in the right direction, but maybe not as far as we want to go.

    We strongly support that consideration be given to aggregate exposures, which is a very good move; the different sensitivities or special vulnerabilities of pregnant women, and by extension the fetus, infants and children; facilitation of products and strategies for pest control methods that have lower associated risks; the burden of persuasion be squarely placed on the proponent of a product; and the review of the registration of a product be triggered by a number of means, including when another OECD country bans that active ingredient, and upon the reasonable request of any other person.

    However, we do have some concerns. We were happy to see that the precautionary principle is included in subclause 20(2), but it's only in relation to cancelling or amending a registration. We reflect CAPE's concerns that it could be used elsewhere.

    There are a number of clauses that would benefit from more explicit inclusion of the precautionary principle. Clauses 7, 10, and 18 come to mind. We also urge a stronger definition of the precautionary principle, so cost-effectiveness is not used as an excuse to not take action that will better protect the health of Canadian children.

    We also have a concern around so-called inactive ingredients. These are not addressed in the bill. Some of these solvents and surfactants may have a greater human health impact than some of the active ingredients, and they may have synergistic impacts with each other, as well as with the active ingredients. So we believe the entire formulation of a pesticide should be assessed for both health and environmental impacts. Contamination in the products may also be a concern, and should be considered when reviewing the products.

    Because of very sensitive neuro-developmental periods during the growth of the fetus and infant, a ten times margin of safety may not be enough. It is certainly, at best, a minimum. We urge that the neuro-developmental effects of a pesticide be well investigated prior to approval, and in some cases that an extra margin of safety be incorporated. We have learned this lesson with lead, and we don't want to learn it again.

    In the case of pesticides that are used purely for cosmetic purposes around schools, child care centres, and homes, the only acceptable risk is no risk. There is no justification for risking a child's health, even if it's a fairly minor impact upon their health, for a weed-free lawn, for example.

    We urge that in labelling pesticides, provisions be made to ensure that warnings and instructions are written in very clear and plain language. The warning that a product is a poison should be clearly understood by a young child in grade one or two. Every year children get into these things, whether they are on farms or in garages, so these warnings have to be clear.

    We're also concerned that studies and experiments upon which a decision to register a product is based may be hidden from the review of independent experts, under the cloak of confidentiality. Any experiment purporting to show that a product is safe must be open to other independent and unbiased scientists and experts for replication, before it is accepted as proof.

    The roles and responsibilities of the Pest Management Review Agency are not delineated in the bill. We have a general concern that this important agency operate in a manner that is transparent; that they remain independent from the pest control industry and undue political control; that they incorporate a precautionary approach in their decision-making; that they be sufficiently resourced to conduct reliable and thorough reviews of studies of the environmental health safety of pesticides; and where it is necessary, that they be able to replicate or commission a replication of studies that have come in.

Á  (1115)  

    In closing, the Canadian Institute of Child Health would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the minister and her staff as well as with this committee and its members to further improve the bill so as to better protect the health of the Canadian environment and the Canadian population, especially Canadian children.

    Once again, we thank you for this opportunity to appear.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Houston.

    Now we'll hear from the Canadian Public Health Association, Dr. Cushman.

    Dr. Robert Cushman (Medical Officer of Health, City of Ottawa; Canadian Public Health Association): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Just to introduce myself, I'm the medical officer of health for the City of Ottawa. I'm here today representing the Canadian Public Health Association, which is a national, independent, non-profit, voluntary organization. The Canadian Public Health Association has been working for years in the domain of public health, obviously, but specifically in occupational environmental health. I'll be talking to the brief, which you have available.

    From the CPHA's perspective, the two principal issues are the precautionary principal and the promotion of and research into alternatives. I might say that the Canadian Public Health Association is working in this area. You've probably heard mention that in Ottawa we're looking at the cosmetic use of pesticides, as is Toronto. I suggest you look at the Toronto Public Health Department's website. They have some very interesting recent information on pesticides. I don't need to remind you of the stories of Hudson, Halifax, and Chelsea in terms of movement at the municipal front.

    Pesticides are ubiquitous. They're everywhere. We've seen dramatic changes over 70 years. We've gone from some 50 pesticides in 1940 to thousands. I think we're now up in the 6,000 range. We're very concerned about them getting into the groundwater. We know that if we all had a blood test, we would find traces of pesticides. We use them in agriculture and in buildings such as this. I saw out the window picnic tables made of pressure-treated wood. These are all issues that are before us. We use them on our lawns and golf courses. Governments and industries use them. You can find them at your local hardware store.

    We know their risks. We know that the first-generation pesticides had persistent risks. There was bioaccumulation, and they're toxic. I think it was The Globe and Mail that had a report this week of degenerative changes in reptiles and amphibians, and they suspect it may be due not only to DDT but also to Malathion, which is what we think we may have to use for the West Nile virus in this community.

    This gives you an idea of how ubiquitous, omnipresent, and potentially dangerous all these things are.

    We know about short-term toxic effects and indirect effects, and we're worried, obviously, about long-term chronic effects, whether it be cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption, sterility, or infertility. We're beginning to see there's an association with these issues. We also know we have at-risk populations, whether they be women who are pregnant, children, workers, or those who have chemical sensitivity.

    I've reviewed the bill, and I've found some strengths. In fact, we're very pleased, because Bill C-53 goes well beyond what we're dealing with today, which is the 1969 Pest Control Products Act. We have some catching up to do, and that is what this bill aims to do.

    I would also say that the first step in any process is regulation of what's on the market. I congratulate you for that. This bill recognizes a number of products on the market and that they are widespread. I'm glad to see that the proposed legislation puts the burden on the manufacturer when registering a product. That is a positive step.

    I'm encouraged by the increased safety allowances for populations at risk that are in place, although I do reiterate the statement by my colleagues here that there seems to be an element of discretion in determining what those increased safety allowances are.

    I'm very pleased to see that there will be a public registry, periodic re-evaluation of products, sharing of confidential business information among government departments, and annual reports to Parliament. These are all good ideas. So I congratulate you.

    But I really think the bill doesn't go far enough to meet the needs of the Canadian population in the year 2002. There's no requirement to deregister older pesticides. There's no consideration of cumulative exposure in the registration, unless the minister asks for it. There's no requirement to evaluate the risk of the formulants or the contaminants or even to label them. This stands to give us problems.

    Also, in terms of the scientific measurement, we haven't seen a definition of acceptable risks and the criteria for toxicity thresholds. There's no direct mechanism for the submission and analysis of independent scientific findings. The research is very important. You have to have access to that research, and that research has to have access to you. There are only minimal efforts to establish an effective surveillance system for reporting and coping with adverse effects.

Á  (1120)  

    You may have seen the Canadian Medical Association Journal some weeks ago saying that when it really comes to environmental health, we're well beyond...we're not trained in our field. Certainly there are certain groups here who are in the vanguard, but we need more training, and we also need notification and surveillance systems. If there's a case of measles in this town today, I'll know about it today, but we don't know about some of these pesticides.

    Yes, the bill addresses the regulatory issues. This is an important first step, and this is a weakness we have to correct, but it doesn't go to give us a comprehensive strategy that would be effective. That's what we really need from Health Canada; that's what we really need from the government. A comprehensive strategy would look at minimization: reducing pesticide use and eliminating pesticides that are persistent or hormonal disrupters. It would replace high-risk pesticides with safer ones, and it would phase out cosmetic use.

    There's also no education mandate. Bill C-53 needs to include a public education program that informs Canadians about the risk of pesticides and what the alternatives are. You can't leave this to your poor cousins. Although Toronto's not poor, nor is Ottawa, most municipalities are. You can't leave this to them. We need leadership on the federal level.

    Also, as I mentioned earlier, there are occupational health, surveillance, and case reports. The government should monitor health effects on workers and help us establish a system so we can deal with these emerging problems.

    In conclusion, the Canadian Public Health Association makes five recommendations to improve the proposed legislation. The first and foremost is that we need a comprehensive strategy. I've already discussed this.

    Second, we need to utilize the precautionary principle. It states that when there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing action.

    Third, we need to implement a pollution prevention approach. The bill attempts to reduce unacceptable risk, but it doesn't really take a preventive approach. Prevention means, for example, eliminating pesticides that are persistent pollutants, not exporting them, and looking at phasing out the cosmetic use of pesticides.

    Fourth, we need increased funding so we can see what the alternatives to pesticides are, whether that be through farming methods or integrated pest management.

    And finally and most important, we need leadership, national leadership. A person's protection should not depend on where they live in this great dominion of ours. Whether they live in Chelsea or maybe in Toronto or in this city two years hence, fine, but everyone in Canada should be protected from coast to coast and from north to south. They should be protected from the potential serious health effects of pesticides.

    Thank you.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Cushman.

    We'll go on to Sandra Schwartz, representing Pollution Probe.

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz (Manager, Environment and Child Health Program, Pollution Probe): Thank you.

    First, let me thank the committee for allowing Pollution Probe to come and address this important piece of proposed legislation and to present our analysis to the Standing Committee on Health.

    In our presentation today, I am going to focus strictly on three elements. There are many other pieces that have been brought forward by representatives here today, as will be brought forward by groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, as well as the Canadian Environmental Law Association next week. Many of us who work in the field of environmental health and the potential risks to both the environment and to health see numerous improvements in the bill, but we also have some concerns.

    I would like to discuss first the specific susceptibility of children to the effects of pesticide exposure and provide recommendations for improvement to Bill C-53, such as the need for entrenchment of the precautionary principle as both the guiding principle and an operational force, the inclusion of a mandatory tenfold safety factor, and the need for a mandatory public advisory council.

    As I mentioned, Bill C-53 is a substantial improvement over its predecessor, which was passed in 1969 and hasn't been amended since. Unlike the current 30-year-old legislation, the mandate of Bill C-53 is essential to ensuring that the pesticide management system is operated with the health of people and the environment as the principal aim. This is quite different from the original piece of legislation. It is anticipated that Bill C-53 will help to protect the health of Canadian children, provided that amendments to soften the legislation are not made. However, some improvements could be made to strengthen the bill to better protect the health of Canadians.

    Let me begin with an explanation of the special vulnerability of children.

    Children really are our most important national resource. Children's brain development and behaviour are important to their health, to their ability to contribute to society throughout life, and to the well-being of future generations. Children cannot make choices about their environment, so it's up to us adults to make the right decisions to ensure that they're protected.

    Children are exposed to many chemical pesticides from a wide range of sources. From conception to adolescence, children are more sensitive and more exposed to pesticides than the average adult. On average, children receive greater exposure to pesticides because, kilogram for kilogram, they eat more food, drink more water, and breathe more air than adults, and their diets are somewhat different from those of adults. Furthermore, depending on their age, children's ability to metabolize, detoxify, and excrete many toxicants is different from that of adults.

    Pesticides can cause a variety of long-term and/or acute effects, depending on the type of pesticide, the dose, the route of that exposure, and the sensitivity of the exposed individual. Certainly children are a more sensitive population.

    Exposure to low levels of some pesticides over many months or years can cause cancer, nervous system impairment, immune suppression, infertility, and behaviour and developmental effects. Household use of pesticides has been identified as a risk factor in causing chronic health problems in children, mainly leukemia and brain tumours. Recent evidence indicates that some pesticides, at extremely low levels, and potentially after a single exposure, can disrupt the body's endocrine system. The developing embryo is particularly sensitive to the effects of these chemicals, as the brain, sexual organs, and structural elements of the body are dependent on finely tuned hormone signals for proper development.

    Therefore, there is an urgent need to make children a pesticide policy priority. Despite children's extensive and heightened vulnerability to environmental contaminants, there is currently no coherent risk assessment and management strategy that ensures that children grow up safe from exposure to pest control products--that's currently; Bill C-53 has some provisions within it.

    In Canada, the pesticide regulation system currently does not take explicit account of children's special vulnerabilities, unlike that in the U.S. The Food Quality Protection Act, the 1996 U.S. pesticide reform law, was motivated in part by a 1993 National Academy of Sciences study, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, which found that the regulatory process did not account for children's special vulnerabilities and which recommended that the process be changed to better safeguard the health of infants and children. The law was passed unanimously, based on the overwhelming evidence presented in the study.

Á  (1130)  

    Under the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, which I'll refer to from now on as the FQPA, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to use an additional tenfold safety factor when assessing and setting regulatory limits for pesticides so as to provide reasonable certainty that no harm would result to infants and children. The safety factor is meant to cover any heightened risks during and after pregnancy, as well as to take into account the incompleteness of toxicity and exposure data for children.

    In order to protect Canadian children from pesticide exposure, we need similar mandatory child-centred protection strategies within our own government structures. Therefore, we recommend the removal of the discretionary language from subparagraph 7(7)(b)(ii), paragraph 11(2)(b), and subparagraph 19(2)(b)(ii), which all state “unless, on the basis of reliable scientific data, the Minister has determined that a different margin of safety would be appropriate.”

    Let me explain our rationale for the removal of this language. By conventional practice in Canada now, the safety or harm of a substance is assessed by comparing a substance's toxicity as determined by animal studies to the level of exposure thought to be occurring. Even when good scientific data for a substance does exist, however, uncertainty generally remains regarding its safety. This is because humans may be more susceptible than lab animals and some people may be more sensitive than others. Uncertainty and the need to be purposely health-protective therefore increase when research is limited. Risk assessment takes into account this imprecision by dividing the greatest exposure level known to not cause harm to young or adult animals by uncertainty factors.

    The standard uncertainty factor currently in use does include a tenfold factor to take into account the difference between animals and humans and an additional tenfold factor to take into account vulnerable populations like children. These are accounted for in Bill C-53 under clauses 7 and 19.

    Although the uncertainty factors are widely used, there's currently no formal requirement that Canadian regulators do so when considering children's extensive and heightened vulnerability to environmental contaminants. Bill C-53 would change this. For the most part, these uncertainty factors are added to safe doses for adult animals because adequate studies on young animals rarely exist. Furthermore, information on exposures to potentially toxic substances is limited, and the scientific research we can ethically do is rarely able to determine accurately how harmful a substance might be to children and others. Removing the discretionary language would ensure the minister has the authority to retain the full tenfold safety factor in all cases, unlike under the current FQPA.

    Now, under the FQPA there is also discretionary language used, and according to a letter dated March 30, 1999--so approximately three years ago--and written by Susan Wayland, who's the acting assistant administrator of the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, between the adoption of the FQPA in 1996 to 1999, of the 120 conventional active ingredients the U.S. EPA evaluated under the act, the agency retained the children's tenfold safety factor for only 15 of those 120. That's 12.5 percent.

    Thus, if the primary objective of Bill C-53 is “to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products,” then it's imperative that an amendment be made to clauses 7, 11, and 19. While the addition of an extra safety margin is part of a strong precautionary approach to regulating substances, there's only a limited application of the precautionary principle, as some of my colleagues have mentioned.

    The precautionary principle is only mentioned in the re-evaluation and special review provision under clause 20. This limited application of the precautionary principle is of great concern to Pollution Probe. Bill C-53 fails to entrench or operationalize this internationally accepted principle. Other jurisdictions have made the precautionary principle operational in ways that balance numerous interests and have established environmental laws based on the principle. We believe it is both desirable and possible for Canada to incorporate the precautionary principle into Canadian legislation such as this.

    Thus, we believe that the precautionary principle needs to be included in the title, the preamble, and the administrative and operational sections of Bill C-53 in order to enable the Minister of Health and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to act even in the absence of complete proof of harm, particularly when there is scientific uncertainty about causal links.

    We all understand that science can't deliver unequivocal answers to environmental health problems. To deal with the gap between science and politics, therefore, legislation such as Bill C-53 must be based on the precautionary principle. According to that principle, when substantial evidence of any kind gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology, or substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm.

Á  (1135)  

    Often an environmental health problem is too large, its causes too diverse, and its effects too long term to be sorted out with scientific experiments that would prove cause and effect. It's hard to take such problems into the laboratory. Instead, we have to rely on observations, case studies, and extrapolated data from dose-response studies to hypothesize the potential health risk. If we always wait for scientific certainty, effects on the fetus and child, with long-term consequences for adult health, may be the outcome, and damage to the natural world may be irreversible.

    Applying the precautionary principle insists that action to protect human health and the environment cannot be delayed until a causal link is established beyond any reasonable doubt. Lack of scientific certainty on the effects of pesticides on human and ecological health therefore should not be used as an excuse for postponing measures that may prevent potential irreversible outcomes. Thus, we recommend that the precautionary principle be a fundamental concept underlying all aspects of the legislation. In the final analysis, precaution is about preventing harm, not about assessing risk.

    In addition to the amendments regarding the precautionary principle, it's essential that Bill C-53 create a mandatory provision for the establishment of a public advisory council. Currently there are provisions for the establishment of a council in Bill C-53 under clause 5. However, the wording needs to be amended to ensure that this is a mandatory requirement--so a change in the language from “may” to “shall”--and that the majority of the membership of this council be comprised of citizens and public-interest representatives in addition to industry stakeholders.

    Furthermore, provisions should be made to include terms of reference for this council, which would act in several ways. It would act to ensure transparency and accountability, verify implementation of the legislation, ascertain existing body of knowledge, etc. Social consensus and hence the legitimacy of standard-setting decisions is unlikely to occur if the public is unable to have effective and timely input into key parts of the decision-making framework.

    In summary, any legislation such as Bill C-53 whose mandate is to protect human health from the effects of environmental hazards must be formulated not only in the absence of definitive data concerning key issues, but also with the likelihood that such data will not be available before final decisions have to be made. Thus, scientific evidence of causal effect should not be the only determining factor in regulatory action. Decisions on pest control products must be taken on the basis of inadequate knowledge. Action on developing targets through enforceable legislation is needed in order to protect the health and well-being of our children.

    While there are improvements that can be made to strengthen the mandate of the new pest control products act, Pollution Probe supports Bill C-53 as currently written. However, in order for Bill C-53 to have potency, the act should read at the outset: “An act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, which holds the precautionary principle at its core”. This amendment, in addition to inclusion of a mandatory tenfold factor and the establishment of a mandatory public advisory council, would further strengthen the primary objective of this bill to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products. It would also provide an incentive for industry to produce and sell safer alternatives to pesticides.

    We strongly encourage this committee to consider these amendments, as they would strengthen the ability of both Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to act effectively and appropriately to protect human health and safety in the environment.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.

    We'll move now to questioning by members of the committee, and we'll begin with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank you for coming. I appreciate your input into this important piece of legislation, which is long overdue and is certainly focused on the health and safety of our citizens in Canada.

    I'm a little concerned about some of the things I've heard you say. Most of you are dealing with the health and safety of children and talking about urban society, which uses, according to the reports we get, about 1 percent of the pesticides that are used in Canada. You talk a lot about how dangerous this is to children, and I'm wondering if you're seeing a lot of actual problems with children due to pesticides. I know it's a big thing, and difficult to get information on, but perhaps the doctors.... Would you have some actual stats on how pesticides are affecting children in Canada today?

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: To answer your question, the reason we end up having these discussions and debates is because of how difficult it is for us to make those kinds of conclusions. Mostly, the effects we're worried about are long-term effects. They're effects that can come from very low doses but that are very hard to prove cause and effect for. What we're seeing in society is fundamentally two categories of effects we're really worried about. The first involves reproductive things: testicular cancer on the rise, falling sperm counts--those kinds of things. We're particularly concerned that when the exposure starts with children, they have a long lifetime of exposure that leads to these problems in the long term.

    The other things we're seeing are learning disabilities, hyperactivity--things that are on the rise that we're trying to find associations with. We have animal studies that show us that these kinds of effects can come from these pesticides, and in particular, one really high-profile study done in Mexico where we have seen dramatic evidence that children can have learning problems and coordination problems from exposure to pesticides.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: It really interests me, because I grew up in a rural setting where I was exposed to pesticides. I think most people in rural settings are exposed to a tremendous amount of pesticides because of the occupation. I'm just wondering if you've got any data that would suggest that those who have been exposed for a significant number of years have the kinds of conditions you've just stated. Is it higher in the agricultural communities than it is in the urban settings? If there's a significant problem there, you'd certainly think there would be.

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: I know Dr. Cushman wants to jump in, but with regard to what Dr. Cushman said about what we need by way of national leadership, we need those kinds of studies to be done. We need the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Health Canada to commit to doing that kind of work, because those studies aren't done and we don't have that kind of evidence. But the precautionary decision we want to make now is to say we don't want to do the 30-year study and find out these things are true; we want to take action now, to be careful and cautious.

    Dr. Robert Cushman: Just to follow up on that, I think your point about agricultural use.... In our brief it says it's roughly 70 percent. You think of lawns in the city, but you really have to think of structural use, like this building. Again, in structural use, it's the whole issue of exposure within a confined space. You have to take that into account.

    I recommend that you look at Dr. Gillette's work. Is everyone familiar with her work? She was here in town a few months ago. She went to Mexico and she found a vegetable-growing town and then she found a cattle town, a ranching town, fairly close by. They had very homogeneous populations. The only difference was the use of pesticides. For some reason, as you could expect, there was lots of pesticide use in the vegetable-growing town and there was minimal or none in the ranching town.

    You should see the drawings these kids did. These are early primary school kids. The children were able to do what you'd expect from a kid who's seven or eight years old--a stick figure, over time a little embellished. The drawings done by the children in the town where they had a lot of pesticides were basically just squiggly lines. They had no form at all. The other thing was that when she went to toss balls to these kids, the kids in the ranching town looked like a future Blue Jays baseball team--and they need them--but the kids in the truck-farming town were so uncoordinated. It was sad. We can make this piece of research available for you. It's actually referenced. It's really worth seeing.

    That's chronic long-term exposure. We do know of one very good study, which is a case control study that was done on farm workers in Iowa. It's very clear that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is much more common in farm workers who are exposed to pesticides, maybe since being children. The disease occurs in mid-life, so to speak. This is the problem the young captain of the Montreal Canadiens has. It's not something you see at the age of 80. You'll see it in 30- and 40-year-olds. That's been demonstrated.

    The article I quoted about the.... You have to look very closely at the development of the fetus and the embryo. Now we're seeing amphibians and reptiles that are born without legs. We're seeing birds that have crossed beaks. They have a shorter gestational period, but by and large the fundamental processes are the same as ours. If you look at what pesticides are, in terms of the toxins, it's clear that they are acting on the same biology that you and I share in terms of the nervous system. The basic principles are the same. That's what they're triggered to do. That's what they're designed to do.

    As was alluded to earlier, we're seeing a lot of things like attention deficit disorder and infertility. Unfortunately, it's not like saying the TB bacillus causes tuberculosis disease or HIV causes that disease. It's not a one-to-one linear relationship. You have 6,000 pesticides out there coming into the narrow part of the hour glass, and then you have all these manifestations. So it's multi-factorial, and a lot of these things have other causes too. We're seeing them. Think also of Lou Gehrig's disease, first attributed to the San Francisco 49ers. These guys were all linemen who were playing on natural turf out in California, in the last days before artificial turf. For some reason, a high number of the team came down with a similar disease.

    Yes, there is a dose response, but you have to look at bioaccumulation. You have to look at synergy, how many of these pesticides are acting simultaneously. It's very complex, but certainly we know enough out there to know we need to be cautious. As was alluded to earlier, this is where this government, the federal government, has to step in and help us. We cannot analyse and dissect this problem in a municipal health department.

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I'd also like to respond.

    Just to give a couple of examples of studies that have been done in Canada by Health Canada, there is an Ontario farm family study done by a researcher by the name of Tye Arbuckle based out of Health Canada. What she has essentially looked at is reproductive outcomes, looking at pregnancy, basically, and the offspring of pregnant women. Primarily what she has found in this study is an increase in certain reproductive outcomes such as spontaneous abortion. She has seen an increase, as well, in certain developmental disorders--things like birth defects. So even in Canada, with the limited research we have done, there are examples of that.

    I would certainly recommend, if you would like, to have some Health Canada researchers come and give some of their research findings to this committee as well. I'm sure they would be more than happy to do so.

    Furthermore, in the U.S. they've also done what's called a bio-marker study, which has essentially looked at a series of different environmental contaminants, including a handful of pesticide metabolites in blood and urine. They did, in fact, find those in the human body.

    That doesn't indicate necessarily there is going to be a health outcome associated with the finding, but what the research essentially has done is show that these do stay in the human body, and they do have the potential to have an effect biologically in humans.

    The next series of studies that need to be conducted by the Centres for Disease Control in the States is looking at these particular substances they found in both urine and blood samples to see what the route of exposure is, what the levels of exposures are, and what the health impacts can be.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    We'll move on to Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to ask three questions.

    First of all, you indicated considerable dissatisfaction with the bill and wish to see some very concrete changes made to it. Let us try to understand the scope of each. One of you mentioned that there is no requirement to deregister old pesticides. You seem to attach a great deal of importance to this problem. In this connection, could you give us some advice on how we might proceed and references that would enable us to propose a very concrete amendment?

Á  (1150)  

[English]

    Dr. Robert Cushman: The question is in terms of basically eliminating older pesticides.

[Translation]

    This is a very difficult matter, in part because the industrialized countries have a bad habit of exporting these old pesticided.

    Then, as far as exports are concerned...

[English]

    I think we can look at that.

[Translation]

    Then a way must be found to ensure that these pesticides are not in either domestic products or commercial al ones. I must admit that I have no answer to this problem. I believe it is a matter of regulation, and that does not, in my opinion, come under our jurisdiction.

[English]

    I'm saying that I don't--

[Translation]

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: This can come under comparative risk assessment.There is reference to the principle of substitution, that is if a pesticide is found which yields the same results with lower risk, then we can...

    Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie is more familiar with the issue than myself, having examined it for a year on the Environment Committee. That committee's report indicates that, in certain countries, when a new replacement product is available on the market after a rigorous assessment, the new product must take precedence over the old. This is the type of measure you seem to want, and even if it has not been presented in the precise form of an amendment, your objectives in this connection are clear.

    I am now going to ask my second question, if I may. Each of you has stressed the lack of any integrated strategy on the effect of pesticides on children. You even expressed a desire to see a reporting system adopted. Moreover, someone has pointed out that, if a child in a city came down with measles, the epidemiological surveillance systems would ensure prompt reporting.

    In the same vein, what in your opinion are the elements missing from this integrated strategy? I would also like to know whether you consider Health Canada's Laboratory Centre for Disease Control to be the centre of coordination for this strategy.

    Finally, if I understand your point of view correctly, you would like to see the notification system generate a kind of mandatory reporting as soon as any signs of pesticide-related infection of contamination occur.

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: Physicians are the ones who should be responsible for mandatory reporting, but we can see that this is not working. It is therefore up to the companies to have regulations that enable them to indicate that there are risks to health or the environment. It is also the responsibility of the government to carry out research and monitoring activities in order to determine whether there is any risk to health or the environment.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you not think were are talking about two different things? That is what I am trying to understand. We are talking about a notification system. I had understood that this was a sort of mandatory reporting, and that physicians were to be required to notify an epidemiology centre if they discovered in their practice certain signs pointing to pesticide contamination. Is this to be a public laboratory or a private one? For most reportable diseases, it is the Health Canada Laboratory Centre for Disease Control which keeps the statistics. As well, in each of the satellite centres in Canada, information is gathered and relayed. What you want, therefore, is to have a system of public notification and to have the bill amended along those lines. Do I understand you correctly?

    Dr. Robert Cushman: Yes, but I must state that this is very complicated, because our understanding is always a bit behind the times. It is very complicated. It is like the way things were with measles 200 years ago, but we have to start somewhere. I think that there can be a system in our poison control and toxicology centres to encourage people. There will, of course, be occupational exposures; they are the ones that will develop the fastest. There would have to be a system for our physicians. I think that the century we are now in will have a lot of environmental disease. There must be a way of encouraging our physicians and our health system to do surveillance.

    It is very interesting that, after September 11, five old diseases most of our doctors had never seen re-emerged, but at least we had past experience to build on. This was, in a way, a rebirth, but it was not easy. It is a challenge, but we cannot close our eyes to it. I want to see a start made. Yes, there must be systems and some education must be started, and we may manage to raise public awareness over time.

    Take the example of HIV. Twenty years ago, our understanding of this disease was sketchy 20 years ago. Things will certainly evolve, but a start has to be made somewhere. I think Health Canada has a role to play in this.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for one last question, Madam Chair?

[English]

    The Chair: You're well over, Mr. Ménard. I'll move to Dr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much. I realize the complexity and the great challenge that exists here.

    First of all, I'd like to ask one simple question. Is there such a product on the market that could be classified as a safe pesticide, that will not affect a human being--it will kill what we don't want, but it will not affect us?

    Mr. Don Houston: There are multiple techniques, everything from pulling a weed by hand to a mousetrap, of course. But there is also diatomaceous earth, which controls earwigs, cockroaches, and a whole slew of other insects in houses. It doesn't work so well outdoors because it doesn't work so well when it's wet. Nevertheless, it's a non-toxic thing unless you're rolling in it, and it can be easily handled in a risk management method that would be completely non-toxic.

    There are other alternatives as well. Organic growers have developed over the years many techniques that work quite well for them, and their produce is worth more than the produce of their next-door neighbour. Unfortunately, with the GMO crops nowadays, sometimes they get polluted and they become a weed, a weed that's hard to control because the herbicides don't work against it. But there are multiple techniques, and I suspect that if we brought in somebody from the Canadian Organic Growers they'd be able to more fully answer your question and tell you how that could be done.

    Besides that, there are also the integrated pest management techniques that are used in orchards in many parts of Canada, which both save a lot of money for the farmer on pesticides and result in produce that is equal in terms of looks, aesthetics, and all of the rest of it, compared to the conventionally produced products. There's still some pesticide use, but much less.

    In urban situations part of the solution will be a willingness to have a few dandelions. By the way, I once worked as a greenskeeper on a little golf course and kept all those greens weed-free simply with a Swiss army knife. So all these things are possible.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Most of the responses you gave pertain to the massive agricultural industry we have, but the vast majority of people in this country live in an organized urban setting: metropolitan centres, cities, towns, and even organized villages. The kinds of pesticides I'm talking about, ones that are used within those communities--and there are lots of them, I know--are the kind children come into contact with. Most of them have warnings on them. If you go to Canadian Tire, just about every can has a warning on it: keep away from children, and if you swallow it, this is what you have to do, and all that kind of stuff.

    Maybe the answer is to ban them all, just not have any of them, and then many of the problems you're referring to would no longer be a concern, given the fact that we don't do the kinds of toxicological studies we should be doing regarding children.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Don Houston: That would be a solution we would, I think, all support to some degree.

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: To be fair, though, I think there are economic consequences of doing that, and I'm going to be the moderate on this panel and suggest that one can--

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: The dollar comes before the life of the child.

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: No, dollars never. What I was going to suggest was that the dollars should never come before. There's no doubt that more research is necessary. If that means we take products off the market before actually conducting that research, it's probably a good thing. That doesn't mean those products can't then be reintroduced if the science has shown that they're safe to use. It really depends on how you define “safe”. Is there going to be an implication for the health of a child? Unless we do the research, it's hard to know.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: We can go on for hours on this.

    I'm going to refer to the doctor now. Children come in, they have a rash or something in the summertime, and the doctor will give some kind of ointment and so forth. Let's be honest here. Doctors cannot take the time to do all the testing and interrelating in case other doctors find children with very similar symptoms and to do a follow-through on where and why those symptoms occur, on why they're there, and on what started them--in other words, the cause. It could be a pesticide affecting children playing in a park, for instance, the same park that has been sprayed by the municipal authorities.

    We can go on and on, and this is practically an impossible task. I don't care what kinds of studies you're referring to. Did anybody do a genetic analysis of all the people in that small community in Mexico? They did not. We can go on and on.

    Mr. Don Houston: Actually, in that particular community, what is interesting is that they were from the same community, but at one point within the last hundred years the community split into two separate villages. Genetically they are as identical as any two populations you're going to find on the planet. In that particular study genetics is not going to be an issue.

    There has been work done, both within Health Canada and within the academic community in Canada, to have a fairly large longitudinal study of children's environmental health. It's basically in the planning process now and it requires a significant commitment from funders, mostly government, to do it. That, we think, will answer a lot of the questions we have--that you're raising, that all of us have raised today. If that study were supported, it might actually come up with some answers.

    Unfortunately, definitive answers are not likely to come out of it for 20 years. We need to work a little bit quicker than that. Well, some definitive answers won't come out of it for 20 years; some might.

    There are going to be contentions. The tobacco industry was contentious about whether or not tobacco caused smokers to have higher rates of cancer than non-smokers until about 1980. We all knew long before that that there was a problem there. So we have to act a little bit quicker.

    A voice: It's still on the market, however.

    Mr. Don Houston: It's still on the market; it's true. But at least it has those awful warning labels, which any five-year-old would understand. This is one of the problems, I think, with some of the pesticides.

    One area we have some data for is poisonings. There are poisonings. Every year some children get poisoned by pesticides.

    That's the very minimum we can do.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

    We'll go on to Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

    Let me just follow up Stan's comments, because I think in the ideal world, if we could somehow rid our marketplace of any pesticides--because there's a risk in all of them--that would be the ideal situation. But given that we're in the real world and have to balance different sectors, it seems to me that the minimum position of the Government of Canada should be at least to act when we've got information and studies to show there is a link between ill health and exposure to those pesticides.

    It just seems to me, listening to all of the witnesses we've had over the last week or so, that the precautionary principle is not alive and well anywhere. I don't get a sense on either front, whether we're looking at the products now on the market--all those products that have been there for years, for which there was supposed to have been review and action taken--or new ones, of what has actually been reviewed. Yesterday I didn't get a clearer answer from the PMRA. What's been reviewed? Where's the science to at least warrant some action? What action has been taken? Has any action ever been taken?

    I guess my one question to you is do you have any better sense of what's happening with the review of pesticides now in the marketplace, and what is the process for ridding our marketplace of products when there is obvious science suggesting a problem?

    Secondly, though, in terms of this legislation, which is supposed to be helping us in the future for new products that come on the market, does it have the teeth to permit government, on the basis of independent scientific evidence, to take action and either remove the product, recall the product, not license, withdraw, send out warnings? Is this power there on both sides of the equation?

    I'm raising this not as an expert in all the different ingredients and the synergies and complexity of the problem's nature, but just as a layperson, as a parent with children who's always worrying about what we're exposing our kids to. Do we either have now any process in place to deal with this, or does this legislation give us any hope for the future?

  (1205)  

    The Chair: I would caution the responders to try to be succinct, because Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis has used up two and a half of her five minutes. All the answers combined can only come to two and a half minutes.

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I'll be really quick. I have two comments.

    First, in my presentation I was indicating that I think the precautionary principle needs to be right at the front, both in the preamble and in fact even in the title. We've been involved. Pollution Probe has done a lot of work on the precautionary principle. Currently, as it's applied in Canada, it's done during a risk management stage, and even there it's very limited. It can't be at risk management; it has to be right up front, during the risk assessment process.

    If it's written into a bill at the beginning of the bill, then it would deal with the risk assessment issue. It can't be solely in clause 20, where you're dealing with amending or cancelling a pesticide. It's got to be within registration, etc.

    So I think to answer that....

    Dr. Robert Cushman: Just to follow up on that, one observation I have is that in this bill a lot of responsibility is in the hands of the Minister of Health and not with a regulatory agency. I know all of you have constituency and parliamentary responsibilities, and the minister obviously has cabinet and Health Canada responsibilities. I just don't have a good feeling about that.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did either of you want to answer that?

    I have another quick question.

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: With regard to where things are in terms of the re-evaluation of pesticides and getting pesticides off the market, there has been a complete lack of transparency. We know very little about what has been going on. Hopefully, this bill will increase that transparency by putting those things in there.

    One of things that hasn't been mentioned today is that the mandatory re-evaluations that are going to happen, which we're very happy about, do not have mandatory timelines. In the same way that pesticide re-evaluations have dragged on for decades, they may continue to drag on under this bill. We want to see completion deadlines as well for those re-evaluations.

    Mr. Don Houston: The PMRA should also be in this bill, including how it works. That should be mandated perhaps differently than it is currently constituted to reflect these concerns.

    The Chair: Your time is up.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I'll come back to you. I'll get on the list.

    The Chair: I just want to caution that I have eight more speakers and about half an hour. So I'm going to start with four minutes for all the remaining speakers.

    We'll move to Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I will not give a long preamble.

    Dr. Cushman, what I would like to know is what you mean when you speak of acceptable risk, a term I heard you use? What is meant by acceptable risk I would also like to know what is meant by cosmetic use. If the Pest Management Regulatory Agency approves a product after assessment, because it considers the risk acceptable, do you think this product should be registered?

  (1210)  

    Dr. Robert Cushman: I may need a hand with this.

    First of all, as far as cosmetic use is concerned, there are options. Clearly, in certain situations there is more of a need for pesticides. In such cases, either there are acceptable options or there are not. There is a difference. Cosmetic use is precisely that: cosmetic.

    What is acceptable risk? There are risks of cancer or environmental risks that are 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000, 000. I am not an expert in this field but there are standards for cancer, for example. An occupational hazard in excess of 1 in 100,000 is of considerable concern to us. RIsk analysis experts could give you more information on this.

[English]

    Do you have anything to add?

[Translation]

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: My apologies for speaking English.

[English]

    One of the confusions, I think, is between the terms “risk” and “harm”. I think almost everybody would agree that when we have good evidence that harm is being caused to people and children, there is no such thing as acceptable harm and we need to get these products off the market. When we talk about risk, we talk about the unknown, the potential for harm. That's why it becomes a values decision and a democratic decision as to when something is worth the risk to have on the market and something is essential to be on the market. What we need is broader momentum and action toward reducing all risks and potential harms by getting as many products as possible off the market and using pesticides as little as possible.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Do you not think it is the PMRA that must assess the need for pesticides? Pesticides do have to be used, after all, to avoid being totally overrun, but there must also be assurance that the risk is acceptable at the time that decision is reached, while being fully aware that this is not an absolute science and today's truth may not apply tomorrow. Is this not the role of the agency? Can we assume that this bill will assign that role to the agency?

    Dr. Robert Cushman: I think so. If I understand correctly, that is the role of the federal government. We do not have that capacity on the municipal level, and I do not believe most provinces do either. That is clear.

    We often wonder whether we need to accept the standards of the European countries or the United States, but I believe it is the role of our federal government. There is no doubt about it in my mind.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

    Ms. Skelton.

    Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Dr. Cushman, you were just talking about the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. But do you feel that cosmetic uses should be outlined in federal regulations, and not allow the provinces or municipalities to make the laws? Should it be a federal regulation right across Canada, so that everyone has to stand by these standards?

    Dr. Robert Cushman: It's a tough question. Let me say first of all, as I said in French earlier, I think it's essential that the regulation of the products be at the federal level. You have to look at what the U.S. and the European Union are doing.

    As for the cosmetic use of pesticides, three municipalities--Chelsea, Hudson, and Halifax--have taken a lead. You're going to see a lot of activity soon. I think it's almost like second-hand smoke. It's similar. It's probably easier for a few municipalities to get out of the starting blocks. But I think it's very important that the federal government get in there quickly, so that all Canadians have the same health and environmental standards.

    As to whether the federal government should do this today, I think it would take forethought, a lot of community mobilization, and a lot of political courage. And, let me tell you, I'm speaking from the point of view of a city that has a tobacco bylaw that is one year old today. So I guess I throw down the gauntlet to you folks on that. The question is, do you want to be a leader or a follower on this? I think in ten years you'll see a very different environment. So I'd encourage you, but....

  (1215)  

    Mr. Don Houston: It seems clear to me, anyway, that the federal government should take a leadership role in trying to define cosmetic uses. The PMRA is already working on a healthy-lawn strategy and is trying to encourage integrated pest management on lawns. A lot of people have some problems with that, and I'm inclined that way as well. Nevertheless, the capacity is there to define it, and it should be assumed by the federal government.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: I have concerns, because, living in a small community in a rural area, we don't have a lot of the things the large cities have. I must say, I congratulate the city of Ottawa.

    The Chair: We'll go to Dr. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I wanted to ask two questions. First, you've talked about having a body that will look at some research and scientific data. Would you envisage the CIHR as being such a body?

    Second, you talked about the need for a surveillance system--which I think is important and is reflected here in the bill--from which you need to have access to information. How do you see that happening? Do you see something like the medical letter where you used to get a little thing about a drug, and the physicians would all know? Do you see that kind of early warning system, so that you could be on the lookout for certain signs and symptoms within your population or physician-patient group, which would help you to start keeping an eye out for certain things? Is that what you're envisaging? How do you see that working?

    Mr. Don Houston: I can perhaps answer something on the CIHR side. I'll leave it to the doctors to talk about the surveillance systems.

    CIHR is actually taking on environmental health these days, and is looking to develop a strategy. They will have a meeting in September on that. They will be releasing some funds to support research on environmental health. What that research will be, I just don't know. No one else does at this point. Some of it may deal with some pesticide issues and some may not.

    It seems to me that one of the areas of necessary work--and CAPE has been a leader on this--is to inform doctors who are on the front lines to recognize symptoms that could be caused by pesticides and then to report them, or in other words to collect a little better information on the background. Unfortunately, the way doctors are paid in most places, they have ten minutes with a patient and they don't have a chance to do a lot of this work.

    As for central registration, Health Canada does that and collects the cancer statistics. However, I tried to find out what the childhood rates are, and could not find them from Health Canada.

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I'd also like to comment on the CIHR.

    In the States, centres of excellence have been established to research children's health and environment. Most of the centres have focused on asthma research, but a couple of new ones have been added to the list that are actually looking at pesticides, particularly in inner-city populations.

    My suggestion is that on the research end, a similar type of structure be set up, like a centre of excellence, through the CIHR to address pesticide exposure in children.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Medical letter...?

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: Yes, to try to answer your medical letter part, as Don Houston has said, the education part of things is really important. We are trying to get doctors up to speed on environmental health and pesticides and the effects, both short-term and long-term. We also need resources to educate the public on the dangers of pesticides and get them to reduce pesticide use.

    In terms of a medical letter type of surveillance, when it comes to a product that's an involuntary risk, where people are exposed through someone else's use, it's not necessarily about surveillance so that we can tell doctors this pesticide is a problem on the market; it's about doing surveillance so the agency can get that product off the market. We don't want to leave it on the market and then have a warning system in place, once we know there are problems with it.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Fry.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for being absent earlier. I was in another committee.

    First of all, congratulations on your brief. You feel that the principle of precaution needs to play a key role in the bill. I have said this week, moreover, that it was totally unacceptable for reference to be made to this just in clause 20 and no mention whatsoever to be made of it in the preamble.

    I do however have some reservations, Dr. Cushman, on your statement about the provinces. You must be aware that a task force in Quebec has addressed this matter and reached the conclusion that the use of pesticides in urban settings, public spaces in particular, had to be eliminated within five years. The next day, the Quebec minister of the environment made the statement that this was the way to go. Now we are waiting on the policy.

    Here is my question. Does the current medical literature enable us to envisage, and propose, that this bill should include time limits, for example five years, for the elimination of the use of certain pesticides? Having the principle of caution as part of the bill is one thing, but the bill needs to include clauses to make true pest control possible for the protection of public health. In my opinion, the means for doing so is the elimination of pesticide use within five years. I would therefore like to know whether such a time frame ought to be included in the bill.

[English]

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: Absolutely. The quick answer is yes, particularly for those pesticides where there is good evidence. That would be the organophosphates and carbamates, which basically inhibit an enzyme that's important for nervous system cholinesterases. There have been numerous studies to show the potential harm those could cause.

    One example is what's happened in the U.S. with a product called Dursban, essentially the chemical chlorpyrifos, which the U.S. has decided needs to be banned. Canada announced it would follow that, and has done nothing.

    We need to look at actually having provisions in the bill that say a timeline must be given of five years--or whatever you choose--particularly for those we have evidence on, and as we gain more evidence on other ones, a timeline will be given. If there's good evidence to suggest there is a risk or harm, particularly to children, there needs to be some sort of provision.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    We'll go to Ms. Kraft Sloan.

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

    Like Mr. Bigras, we were involved in another committee I had to chair this morning, so I do apologize for missing your presentations.

    I want to follow up on some questioning on the issue of the precautionary principle. I don't know if the witnesses can answer my question, but I will barrel ahead anyway.

    Do you have some experience with the testing protocols used by companies to determine the safety of their products? We heard from the head of the PMRA yesterday that one of the reasons why the precautionary principle is restricted in the bill and not indicated in the bill the way some would like is that the precautionary principle is used for the risk assessment testing protocols that companies undertake, and secondly with the joint review in which Canada is involved with the United States. However, upon questioning her, it appears that nowhere in any of the documents or the guiding protocols is the precautionary principle articulated.

    I'm wondering if the witnesses can comment on how the precautionary principle is used in these risk assessment protocols.

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: I guess I would say that it isn't. Certainly the term “precautionary approach” has been used for the way that risk assessments are done. What that's meant to describe or illustrate is that when they're done well, we do make conservative assumptions, and we do try to err on the side of safety.

    As I was saying in my presentation, no matter what we talk about, with uncertainties and trying to take into account the uncertainties in these risk assessments, they are fundamentally calculations. We end up having to lock ourselves down to numbers, and we end up coming up with a number that is our exposure, and a number that is our safety level, and comparing them. Unless you have a process for being able to use the precautionary principle, something formal, you basically have to go with that number and decide whether it is safe enough or not.

    What we're proposing is that if, after doing the risk assessment, the level of exposure seems too high, then we should move to deregister or restrict a substance. Even if that number doesn't say the exposure is definitely too high, we still need to look at it. We need to take a precautionary look at whether we still need to restrict this pesticide because of all the uncertainties, because of all the things we don't know, and all the potential risks we can't calculate.

  (1225)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So you don't have confidence that the precautionary principle is being applied the way it should be in the pre-market registration, the testing process, and it certainly isn't indicated in the bill the way it should be. That's your opinion, then?

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: There are no provisions in the bill--Kapil has certainly outlined that--indicating the type of research that will be examined, and I would suggest that ought to be written into the bill: the specific battery of tests that will be used. I have a document here from the Children's Environmental Health Network in the U.S., which has looked at the issue of pesticides and the FQPA. They suggest the number of the test battery that's used and what needs to be added to that. I'd be happy to provide that to the committee as a way to look at putting those provisions in.

    Furthermore, I think primarily, when we are looking at the current test battery, the exposure that's done on animals is usually using adult animals; it's not using young animals. So we're not really getting adequate data as a result of that. Some of that also needs to be put in as provisions--that young animals need to be looked at, not just adults.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kraft Sloan.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm actually quite interested in the PMRA, because we've heard witnesses before the committee who have suggested that perhaps we would have some problems with the efficiencies of the PMRA: is it actually doing its job; is it doing it effectively? I'd like a quick comment from your perspective on that.

    I think it was the doctor who suggested that timeliness for re-evaluation has become a real concern. Perhaps that should be in legislation, the timeliness of products coming on as well as re-evaluation. I think that would be a healthy thing.

    Other witnesses have suggested it should be in the piece of legislation, so that we have some sort of commitment and it's not left out there. Would you agree with that?

    Dr. Kapil Khatter: We definitely agree with that. The numbers we've heard in terms of some of the re-evaluations are upwards of 15 to 20 years that these evaluations are going on. We can't tell you as outsiders what the rationale for that is, but certainly they shouldn't take that long.

    We're afraid that as much as we're very happy there are no mandatory re-evaluations, because there are so many pesticides that were registered at times when standards weren't as strict, it may be meaningless if there are no completion deadlines for those re-evaluations.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think we're seeing consensus, regardless of how you approach the bill, that this should be in the piece of legislation. I want to thank you for that.

    The other question is, are there pesticides in Canada--and I think you've talked about one or two already--that are a risk and perhaps shouldn't be there, and do we have other products that you know of that could fill that gap and be much safer?

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I mentioned classes of pesticides, which are organophosphates and carbamates--two classes. There are alternatives, such as biological pesticides. They're still called pesticides, but they're not chemical-based.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are these effective, though?

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: If you look at the literature, it indicates that they are. Integrated pest management is another way of dealing with reduction of pesticide use. It doesn't get rid of chemical pesticides necessarily, but it at least reduces the number that are used.

    There's a great body of literature indicating alternatives are both safer and effective.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's our concern as well. I don't think there's anyone in Canada, either in the agricultural community or golfers or golf care keepers, who enjoys using pesticides. They are something we use because there are very few options. So I think we're all on the same side of that, and the reduction of the use of these chemicals and pesticides becomes very important to all Canadians because of the precautionary principle, because we're not sure of the effects. That's all true. I think we're all on the same wavelength right there. We want to have a government body, the PMRA, that is efficient, run efficiently, and has the resources to be able to protect Canadians. I'd like your concurrence on that.

    I see Don might have something to add.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Don Houston: I have a couple of comments. First of all, there are a number of golf courses that are moving towards chemical-free operations, including one of the most famous in Canada, which is the Royal Montreal.

    My uncle fairly recently died of a cancer after working as a greenskeeper for twenty years. He came to greenskeeping later in life, and died a little bit younger than he perhaps should have, but he insisted that his cancer wasn't caused by his exposure to pesticides.

    On the other hand, a colleague of his who was also a greenskeeper said “It's incredible how many of my friends who are greenskeepers are dying of cancer and a little bit younger than my friends who are not greenskeepers”. I come from a golfing family, you might have guessed.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's true, but just on that, before you add the phobias that appear, we are living healthier, longer lives now than ever before.

    Mr. Don Houston: No, that's not entirely true.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Those are the stats.

    Mr. Don Houston: No, the stats are that we live longer, the stats are not that we live healthier. And that only accounts for the people who are now elderly, it doesn't account for younger children.

    The stats also show higher rates of asthma, higher rates of attention deficit disorder, higher rates of testicular cancer and breast cancer in younger people.

    So we can play the biostatistician's game if we want and say that this is worse and this is better.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): In the same vein, we are aware that pesticides are composed of a number of different chemicals, not just one. Tobacco also contains a number of different products. I am very worried about the possibility of keeping a register when these pesticides are composed of several chemicals. Are we capable of knowing which product has which effect? Has a link been established between a specific chemical and its effects?

    My second question is this: there is reference to lymphomas, chronic lung disease. We know that a register is necessary because everyone is going to find it terrible that there is a risk of lymphoma or other cancer from such products. But there is also reference to skin disorders that are not major. Is it not delusional to think one that records are going to be kept on skin disorders which may become chronic? We are talking quality of life here. Chronic skin disorders are a real pain in the neck. Is it not sort of dreaming in technicolor to think there is a possibility of keeping a record of such problems?

    Dr. Robert Cushman: I am the one who suggested a register. I feel we need to start somewhere. If we are going to be nihilistic, we will have to face the consequences. Earlier, the question was raised as to whether human lives or dollars were what counted. I must assure you that environmental damage is going to cost us dearly. We have already started to have to pay the price.

    I understand you totally, but I think we need to get started somewhere and to identify the areas where we can do something, where there is a worthwhile cost-benefit ratio. We need scientists, epidemiologists and an institute.

    Dr. Fry asked about the location. I am a bit leery of institutions. I want to see the total problem addressed in a multidisciplinary approach. I agree with you totally but I would prefer to see us take a smart approach, not a nihilistic one.

  (1235)  

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I would like you to know I have nothing against a register, on the contrary. It is just that, if we decide to have one, it must be effective. If we record every case of eczema and psoriasis, well..... We must be sure that there is the possibility of establishing a cause and effect relationship between a chemical product and something else. Today's products may cause all manner of problems, not to mention the ones that will be coming along in future, but if we have a register, it needs to be something smart, something that will be both effective and manageable. Otherwise, all of the side effects of any product whatsoever could be associated with a chemical component of a pesticide.

    Dr. Robert Cushman: I agree, and would like to add something. I believe it was Mr. Bigras who referred to what was being done in Quebec. I am sorry, but I spoke of the provinces in general. I think that the point I would like to make comes back to this.

    In our country, we are only 32 million in population. The management of the problems we are faced with is, therefore, very costly. I have referred to Europe and the United States. I suggest that our federal government should not just keep reinventing the wheel, because clearly we need to establish international standards. This is often impossible to do, but we must at least try. Otherwise, this challenge is insurmountable. This is a highly complicate science and we are just beginning.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Scherrer.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, two minutes.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll be real quick.

    I have a question for Sandra, who mentioned the issue of Dursban, which is of concern to many of us as well. We did raise this matter at committee with the minister and in the House, and we were told that in fact there was no initial promise to withdraw the product, and the Minister of Health actually said in the House that we're in line with exactly what the United States is doing.

    So I wonder if you could tell us, if that's true, why Dursban, after all this evidence and these statements of concern, is still on the market, and what we can do to actually advance action on this particular pesticide.

    Ms. Sandra Schwartz: Well, are we in line? It probably depends on who you talk to. It's the same with the EPA.

    Essentially the U.S. has banned the substance, over time. They're phasing it out. Canada is not really doing that. We don't like banning things. That's not sort of part of the language of Canadian legislators. As such, there's certainly more work that needs to be done to look at banning substances in Canada.

    I'm not really sure how to answer your question about how to deal with Dursban. I think it is one substance that we do know has consequences, and basically it may be part of a public education campaign that needs to be more widely disseminated so that people know not to buy the product. We also need to work with companies like Home Depot and other places to actually get it off the shelves. So it may not be a matter of legislative action only, but trying to do some voluntary initiatives with industry as well, first to get them to stop producing it, and secondly to get some of the distributors to stop distributing it.

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

    Thank you to all our witnesses. Thank you for being succinct. Your presentations were clear. We may call you again if we need some clarification on some of these comments as we come to the end of our study. Thank you.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]