ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 23, 2003

¹

1540

The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

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

The Chair

¹

1545

Mr. Ian Green (Deputy Minister, Department of Health)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

º

1605

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

º

1610

º

1615

The Chair

º

1620

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Ian Green

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Ian Green

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Ian Green

º

1625

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Acting Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health)

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Ian Green

º

1630

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Ian Green

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

º

1635

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal)

Mr. Ian Green

º

1640

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Julian Reed

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Ian Green

º

1655

Mr. Julian Reed

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Neil Maxwell (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Ian Green

»

1705

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Peter Morrison (Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

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

»

1710

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Paul Szabo

»

1720

Mr. Ian Green

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

»

1725

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Mr. Ian Green

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

»

1730

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

»

1735

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

»

1740

Mr. Ian Green

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Ian Green

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

»

1745

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

»

1750

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

»

1755

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 032

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 23, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our committee. The agenda has been distributed.

    Before we begin hearing our witnesses, I would like to say a few words about the subject that was raised by our colleague, Mr. Bigras, in a letter that he sent to me. It's about the contamination of Saint-Pierre Lake. You will recall our meetings with people from the Department of National Defence a few years ago about unexploded shells. Mr. Bigras feels that no positive steps have been taken yet.

    Given that the finance minister has cancelled his appearance next Thursday to discuss the role of the finance department in the Kyoto Protocol, we could take the initiative to invite representatives of the defence department next Thursday to discuss the subject raised by Mr. Bigras in order to see whether the department is willing to do its duty.

    On another matter that concerns Kyoto, as you know—Yes, Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, thank you for responding so quickly to my request to explore the various aspects of the Saint-Pierre Lake decontamination issue. By the way, the commissioner is well aware of the contamination situation. You said that you were going to ask the defence department to appear on Thursday.

    In my letter, I also asked to have the Groupe d'action pour la restauration du lac Saint-Pierre, which has useful and significant expertise on this issue, appear before the committee. If we were to hold a meeting on this issue, it might be a good idea to invite the Groupe d'action.

    The Chair: Okay. I had forgotten that, I'm sorry.

[English]

    The other subject has to do with Kyoto, as you know, and this is to address most of the committee members, who voted in favour of Kyoto. The entire protocol will take off only if Russia ratifies, and there have been discussions in Moscow recently when the Prime Minister approached Mr. Putin on this. The reason for raising it here is to invite those of you who have contacts with members of the Duma in Moscow to initiate some correspondence or some dialogue with them in order to urge them to take an interest in this issue, and possibly to generate some pressure within their own parliament in order to arrive at ratification soon. The number of nations that have ratified Kyoto is now well over 100, for a total population of over four billion people, so there is a considerable popular base for it, globally speaking, and it would be a great pity if the protocol were not to get off the ground because of the absence of the Russian Federation from the table. So I'm urging those of you who have international contacts to do that. I have taken that initiative with two Russian parliamentarians, but that is not the end of the story. I think it needs a very broad effort.

    That concludes the second item.

    Today we have a unique session on the subject of pesticides. We welcome, of course, our commissioner, Madam Gélinas, and her officials, and we welcome in a special manner the Deputy Minister of Health, the pro tempore head of PMRA, Madam Sexsmith, and Mr. Clarkson. The discussion I'm sure is going to be constructive, and we will give the floor first to Mr. Green, then to Madam Gélinas.

    Mr. Green.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Ian Green (Deputy Minister, Department of Health): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss chapter 1 of the 2003 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

    I welcome the commissioner's comments in that report that a sound framework for evaluating pesticides has been developed and progress has been made since the establishment of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in 1995 within Health Canada. Furthermore, I believe the health and the environment of Canadians are being safeguarded through our efforts, and I hope to underline that during the discussion today.

[Translation]

    We agree generally with the commissioner on many of her recommendations and you will see from the department's responses to these recommendations that actions are already planned, underway or completed.

[English]

    However, there are a number of specific comments that have been made that I do not agree with, and I would like to address them today in a constructive, and I hope cooperative, manner. Before I do that, a major accomplishment I would like to highlight is the new Pest Control Products Act that was given royal assent in December 2002 and is targeted for proclamation in the spring of next year. The new act further strengthens health protection by requiring additional special protection for children and infants, makes the registration system more transparent by allowing access to detailed information on pesticides, strengthens post-registration control of pesticides by requiring pesticide companies to report adverse effects and sales data, requires the re-evaluation of older pesticides every 15 years, and provides increased powers of inspection and higher maximum penalties when pesticides are not marketed or used in accordance with the law.

[Translation]

    The new act and the additional resources that are being provided will allow even more progress to be made in the area of the regulation of pesticides in Canada. In fact, the new act is required in order to implement some of the specific issues that the commissioner raised in her report and that this committee has raised previously.

[English]

    Going back to specific issues, first of all, I will address the commissioner's concern about the management of health and environmental risks associated with pesticides.

    Mr. Chairman, Health Canada's first priority respecting pesticides is the protection of health and the environment. Before a pesticide is registered for use in Canada, it undergoes a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure that its use will not pose an unacceptable risk to either human health or the environment. As noted by the commissioner, the agency uses standards, tests, and processes that are protective of public and environmental safety and are comparable to those used in the United States, Europe, and other OECD countries. In addition, the commissioner questioned whether health and the environment are being protected because of the apparent slowness of the re-evaluation program and the use of temporary registrations while data are being generated by companies.

    I want to point out that all registration decisions, whether temporary or full, are based on rigorous scientific evaluation of the health and environmental risks posed by pesticides. Only those pesticides where risks are found to be acceptable are considered for temporary or full registration. With respect to the commissioner's concern about temporary registrations, a temporary registration is granted only when there is a clear indication that risks are acceptable and that the product is efficacious, based on our scientific evaluation and as required by law. U.S. and European regulators make use of temporary registrations with approaches similar to those adopted in Canada. Following a determination of acceptable risk based on our scientific evaluation, we may ask for the generation of confirmatory data under a temporary registration. Additional safety factors, an internationally accepted approach, are also used to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place while we are waiting for the results of studies.

    An example of this type of request includes the need for chemical analysis of the pesticide under full-scale manufacturing conditions to confirm the results of similar studies done on a smaller scale. These types of studies can only be done once production has started. Another example would be the need for confirmatory lowest effective rate data to ensure that the product is in fact being used at the lowest rate possible.

    I would like to add that in Canada, we actually have in place two steps in our process. We review the submission to ensure, first, that all needed data are there and, second, that the studies are in fact appropriate and acceptable studies. This is an additional step taken in Canada that is actually not part of the pre-review process in other countries, in order to ensure as complete a data package as possible. In addition, as a third check, if it is determined during the detailed review that critical studies are missing, the product will not be registered.

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    I believe that this practice of granting temporary registrations, a practice shared with other OECD countries, because they undergo the same rigorous evaluation as a full registration, does not jeopardize public safety or the environment.

[English]

    With respect to re-evaluation of older pesticides, the enhanced re-evaluation program--

    The Chair: Mr. Green, excuse me for a moment. So that we can operate on the same wavelength, now that you are touching on the second part of your presentation, I presume, could you indicate which paragraphs in the commissioner's report you have dealt with? Would it be from 1.36 onward, beginning on page 9 in chapter 1, “Some pesticides are approved based on inadequate information”?

    Mr. Ian Green: Mr. Chair, I've dealt with this point. My remarks were initially general on the overall comments of the commissioner. I've dealt with this point on temporary....

    The Chair: Temporary is dealt with in items 1.36 and 1.37 of her report.

    Mr. Ian Green: Yes. As I turn to re-evaluations, that would be number 1.51 and following.

    The Chair: And then at the end of your presentation could you indicate whether, having made your remarks, you agree with the balance of the commissioner's report?

    Mr. Ian Green: Yes.

    To continue, I think I was about to turn to the question of the re-evaluation of older pesticides. With respect to the re-evaluation of older pesticides, the enhanced re-evaluation program that is now underway is designed to systematically re-examine all pesticides that were registered prior to 1995 to ensure they meet current scientific standards.

    Re-evaluation is an important priority for Health Canada; however, it is important to be aware that pesticides registered before this date were still subject to scientific testing and an in-depth review and safety assessment that was consistent with international risk assessment approaches at that time.

    Furthermore, each time a request is made to alter a registration for an older pesticide in any way, the scientific database is revisited in some capacity. Thus, even though a pesticide may have been registered for many years, its file remains open and active and it is subjected to ongoing assessment of the scientific database and the resulting changes to allowable use.

    Prior to the establishment of the PMRA in 1995, studies that supported pesticide registrations were submitted to and reviewed by the various federal departments responsible for pesticide regulation for the purpose of conducting safety and risk assessment. As science evolves and our risk assessment methodologies are refined, it becomes necessary to review older chemicals in the context of these changing methodologies. It is this context that forms the basis of the approach of the current re-evaluation program.

    The pre-1995 registration date is an identifier of older products that coincides with the creation of the PMRA, but it does not imply that these older chemicals were registered without a safety assessment.

¹  (1555)  

[Translation]

    I would like to stress that pesticides can be removed from the market at any time if new information shows an unacceptable risk to Canadians. As well, actions by international partners are continuously monitored for regulatory developments which may affect the continued acceptability of a pesticide in Canada. Any product which would pose an unacceptable risk to Canadians would be acted on immediately.

[English]

    The target is to re-evaluate 405 older-pesticide active ingredients by 2006-07, which lines up with the target for completion in the United States. The enhanced program makes greater use of recent re-evaluations completed in other countries, particularly the United States, in order to be as efficient as possible.

    Additional resources have been provided to the PMRA to help meet this target. As of March 2003, 61 active ingredients and their end-use products were addressed, and to date, 64 active ingredients and their end-use products have been addressed. Reviews of an additional 22 active ingredients have been completed and will be consulted on shortly. It is expected that about 40% of the re-evaluations will be completed by next spring.

    With regard to the commissioner's concern regarding slowness, this re-evaluation program is in line with re-evaluation programs of the United States and our other OECD partners, most of which have similar schedules.

    A further point is that with the new act the registration system will be more transparent by establishing a public registry to allow access to detailed evaluation reports on registered pesticides and allow the public to view the test data on which pesticide evaluations are based.

    Turning to the question of compliance, effective regulation of pesticides relies on collaboration between federal and provincial regulators. The PMRA targets its enforcement and compliance efforts on those areas where non-compliance poses the greatest risks. This includes a wide range of compliance measures, ranging from education to warnings and prosecutions. Because this is an area of shared jurisdiction with provincial regulators, it is important to recognize the significant role provinces play in certification and training and in obtaining compliance through similar approaches of education, warnings, and prosecutions.

    Evidence that the majority of the agricultural users do apply good agricultural practices is provided in provincial surveys, which showed that actual used label rates were well below maximum rates. Yearly surveys of compliance with MRLs, maximum residue limits, for pesticide residues on Canadian food would show significant numbers of violations of MRLs if users used significantly higher amounts of pesticides than is specified on the label. Data from the CFIA show this is not the case.

    Mr. Chairman, Health Canada has made progress in its goal of enhancing access to newer and safer technology and alternatives, including reduced-risk products and biopesticides. We have put in place a number of programs that encourage companies to submit reduced-risk products for priority review to allow more rapid market access to these products. These programs have enjoyed considerable success, with 73% of the active ingredients designated as reduced risk in the United States submitted or registered in Canada.

    To conclude, Mr. Chair, while typically the timelines are met 85% to 90% of the time for new active ingredients and new uses, our timelines average 74% to 85% for those two groups over the last fiscal year. Even with this slight decrease from our normal average, the performance is equal to or better than most OECD countries.

    I would like to return very quickly to two recent developments that have put Health Canada in a position to make many of the enhancements to the regulation of pesticides that have been recommended by this committee. These developments are the new Pest Control Products Act, which received royal assent in December 2002, and the additional funding that's being provided.

    Regulations are being developed on a priority basis in order that the new act can be brought into effect as quickly as possible. These regulations include mandatory adverse effects reporting and the mandatory reporting of sales data by companies, both mentioned in the commissioner's report. Implementation of these requires the new act.

    The new act itself will enhance many other aspects of the Canadian pesticide regulatory system. For example, the current practice of higher standards for protection for children is in fact codified in the new PCPA. Additionally, re-evaluations of older pesticides must be completed 15 years after they are registered, and transparency is enhanced through greater access to information and consultations.

    In closing, I would like to stress that pesticides are being managed effectively at the federal level. The health of Canadians and their environment is being safeguarded, and these safeguards are being strengthened by the coming into force of the new act and the new resources devoted to the regulations.

    You asked me, Mr. Chairman, to respond in terms of where we agree with the recommendations. The following is a very quick overview.

    In terms of the recommendations--and I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers here in front of me--I would like to underline that we are in agreement with and have completed, in our view, the requirements, the recommendations, with respect to the PMRA's operational program to handle new employees and staffing plans for future activities.

    We are in agreement with and have implemented the recommendation that Health Canada, the PMRA, and Environment Canada agree to develop a ranking of pesticides most likely to contaminate water.

º  (1600)  

    PMRA will continue to test assumptions, reassess screening measures, and enhance its appropriate submission management procedures to ensure that changes are documented. We have agreed and initiated two more. PMRA will carry out re-evaluation of all older pesticides by 2006. Additional resources have been dedicated to re-evaluation, as I mentioned. A re-evaluation note on priorities will be published shortly, and progress on formulants and microcontaminants will be published in the annual report required under the new Pest Control Products Act, based on current practices and internal and external guidelines for communicating to registrants the results of re-evaluations.

    We're in agreement in principle with the requirement or recommendation that the PMRA work with the Canadian and international partners to determine how, with finite resources, compliance activities can be better targeted and measure results, and we'll also work with provinces to explore the enhancement of information-sharing.

    We are also in agreement with the implementation of adverse effects reporting and the pesticide sales database, but both depend, obviously, on the new legislation. As I've mentioned, regulations are under development.

    Health Canada and Environment Canada will work with PMRA and the provinces to promote monitoring and reporting of pesticides in water. Health Canada's food section will consider pesticide-related health research and monitoring as priorities and resources permit. We are in agreement with the recommendation that we need to improve the coordination and establishment of priorities on research in that respect, and we are working with the five NR departments to improve our activities in this area.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Green.

    We don't have the benefit of the text from which you were reading, so we were all trying to make some correlation with the text of the commissioner's report. Do I understand correctly from what you said, since you dealt with inadequate information, that you have responded to recommendations 1.36 to 1.39, and since you dealt with re-evaluation, that you addressed sections 1.51 to 1.53, and since you commented on compliance, that you dealt with recommendations 1.83 and 1.84?

    If that is correct, I did not hear you commenting on “Key assumptions are not tested and some are not correct”, which would be sections 1.40 to 1.45, “The Agency does not consistently apply its evaluation framework”, which is 1.46 to 1.50, “Progress on re-evaluations has been very slow”, 1.54 to 1.57, “Basic management tools not used”, which is 1.58, “Agency has been slow to manage other components of old pesticides”, which is 1.59 and 1.60, and “Overall, the Agency is not ensuring that pesticides meet current standards”, which is 1.61 to 1.66. Maybe also--I'm not sure about this, because I may have missed something--I did not clearly hear your comments on “The Agency is not meeting its performance targets consistently”, which is 1.67 and 1.68, and finally, “Planned performance gains have not been achieved”, which is 1.69 to 1.71.

    As you can see from this, we are having difficulties in fitting your submission with the report, and we don't have a text.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Ian Green: I can, if it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, seek to give you a more complete.... I had not set my remarks up to respond, as you can tell, to each of the recommendations in the report. I was quite anxious in my remarks to underline that I think our fundamental and basic evaluation approach is sound. I wanted to deal in particular with the issue of re-evaluation and temporary registrations.

    I am pleased to touch, if you wish, on any of the other areas. I have given you a list of the recommendations I think we have responded to. In some of the areas you've talked about we don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of the commissioner, and those are particularly the ones I've emphasized. We believe we have a sound and basic framework for temporary registrations and re-evaluation. I'm pleased to talk, to the extent that I can capture the list, on other areas, but slow progress I think speaks to the issue of re-evaluations. I have not structured my remarks to directly relate to each of the recommendations. I hope that doesn't frustrate the committee, but I haven't structured them that way.

    The Chair: Mr. Green, I can appreciate your difficulty. At the same time, there are headings in the commissioner's report, such as “The Agency does not know how effective its compliance activities have been”, “Methods for measuring pesticide residues on food are not up-to-date”, “Critical information on pesticide use and exposure is still missing”, that need to be dealt with. I appreciate the fact that you made a generic statement, but that does not cover the specificity of the commissioner's report, in which we find very precise comments. It seems to me, and I'm sure my colleagues will agree, that her comments need to be addressed.

    Mr. Ian Green: I was told I had ten minutes, and it would be hard to address all of the recommendations in the report in ten minutes. I assumed that in the discussions that would follow there would be opportunity to talk about or address any of the specific recommendations. I'm sorry, in ten minutes it would not have been possible to cover the full range of issues.

    The Chair: You may want to address the specifics in writing for the use of the members of this committee.

    In the meantime, we will hear Madam Gélinas, and then we can open the meeting to questions by the members.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Ladies and gentlemen, members of Parliament, good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear again before this committee. I am here today to present our findings on “managing the safety and accessibility of pesticides”. With me this afternoon are my key management staff responsible for this audit: Neil Maxwell, Principal, and Peter Morrison, Director responsible for this audit.

    I would like to begin by recapping our key findings and concerns and then discuss how the government should go about addressing them and the important role your committee could play.

    We examined this issue because pesticides play an important part in our lives today. They help produce and preserve the food we eat. Canadians use them in forests, in gardens and on lawns, to control parasites on pets, and to combat the spread of diseases such as West Nile virus.

    But there are risks—ones that, Mr. Chairman, your committee explored extensively in its report of 2000. Given the importance of pesticides and given the risks, the federal government must strive for consistent excellence in evaluating pesticides and ensuring compliance with regulations governing their use.

    Our audit was far-ranging. Much of it focused on the Pest-Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), a branch of Health Canada. We covered the evaluation of new pesticides against current standards, the re-evaluation of older ones, the timeliness of access to new pesticides, and activities to ensure compliance with legislation and label requirements. But we ranged further, examining other branches of Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada. Each has an important role in understanding the impact of pesticides, through their research and monitoring.

    We found that the PMRA has made some significant improvements since its creation. However in all of the areas we examined, we found weaknesses too numerous to describe in these opening remarks. As a reference tool and a quick overview of our chief concerns, we have provided you with an expanded version of the audit chapter's table of contents. If you turn to the table of contents, you will see some of our key concerns.

º  (1610)  

[English]

    If you want to have a look at it, I will highlight some of them. It was attached to the opening statement.

    In terms of evaluating new pesticides, for example, we found that the PMRA is making unrealistic assumptions about user behaviour. On the re-evaluations of old pesticides, we found that some basic management tools are not used. With respect to providing access to new pesticides, the PMRA is not consistently meeting its performance targets. In terms of compliance, the agency does not know how effective its compliance activities have been.

    With respect to understanding the impact of pesticides, Health Canada needs to fill some gaps on Canadians' exposure to pesticides, and research on the health impacts of pesticides has not been a priority.

    We also examined the PMRA's internal management and found that human resources management continues to be difficult, and that they do not track the cost of projects.

    Overall, I concluded that these numerous witnesses had raised serious questions about the management of the risk to health and to the environment associated with pesticides. The most serious concern in my report is the slow progress in re-evaluating older pesticides. Some of these pesticides were first registered decades ago, when standards were less stringent and less was known about the effect of pesticides. There are 405 old pesticides contained in thousands of commercial products that the PMRA pledged to re-evaluate by 2006. The government has been working on some of these re-evaluations for more than ten years. All of those pesticides have been fully re-evaluated, and have either been removed from the market or had restrictions placed on their use. For example, the re-evaluation of DEET, the widely used insect repellent, began in 1990 but was not completed until 2002, after which its use was substantially restricted.

    One example illustrates why the slow progress on re-evaluation is a concern. The PMRA had made a commitment to re-evaluate eight widely used lawn pesticides by 2001. Last March, when the field work of my audit of federal pesticide management was completed, five of those eight re-evaluations were still underway. As a result, decision-makers at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels do not have the information they need to make good decisions about managing those pesticides, nor do individual homeowners know the risks of the pesticide they are applying to their lawns.

    We reached the troubling conclusion that some pesticides available on the market likely do not meet current standards for protecting human health and the environment. The risks associated with pesticide use can never be reduced to zero, but the agency has a responsibility to ensure that the pesticides Canadians use do meet current standards.

    This is a longstanding problem, with many promises made along the way. Fifteen years ago, in 1988, we recommended that the government complete its re-evaluations as quickly as possible on the basis of highest risk. The department responsible at the time, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, responded that the department “...agrees that currently registered pesticides be re-evaluated on the basis of highest risk. A systematic process has already been established to determine re-evaluation priorities on the basis of risk-ranking and volume of use”.

    Commitments to action were made in 1988 and 1994, and in response to this committee's report in 2000. Why is it that 15 years later so much work remains in an area where health and the environment are at risk? We noted other examples of inaction on past audit findings.

    This, Mr. Chairman, is the past, but I would like to focus on the future. In my view, things need to change. With the new act and new resources come new expectations of the federal government. In this new environment, the PMRA, Health Canada, and other departments now have an opportunity to act decisively to correct the many witnesses highlighted in our report. They need to seize that opportunity.

º  (1615)  

    We have set out some of the key areas where improvements are needed, and I would be pleased to provide the committee with more details. I must say, however, that the responses to my recommendations by the PMRA, Health Canada, and others gave little indication they intend to act decisively. For example, Health Canada accepted our recommendation to strengthen pesticide evaluations, but then said that no future strengthening was required. Are they prepared to clearly commit to addressing each witness we identified, with particular attention to the key issue, such as the re-evaluations? Will they put in place detailed action plans with concrete measures and demanding deadlines to resolve the witnesses and to respond to our recommendations?

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, by asking questions like these, your committee could help ensure that the PMRA and the other departments do resolve these problems decisively. The committee could also be invaluable in the future by monitoring progress on this action plan, including follow-up on our recommendations. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food has done something similar, by holding regular hearings when the PMRA provides an update on how it is improving access to pesticides for farmers. Assessing progress at regular intervals on pesticide re-evaluation would be particularly important, and could be based on the new annual re-evaluation progress report that the PMRA has committed to develop.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to take this opportunity to very briefly explain the audit process that we use when we undertake this type of audit. I should point out that departments and agencies that are the subject of an audit are involved from the very outset of that audit. They are asked on a regular basis to corroborate the facts and information that will be included in our report. For example, under the pesticides chapter, the agency, as well as the departments, were asked more than once to check that there were no errors in the facts we were including and the data that we were using. Thus, the departments and agencies know what is in the chapter and have corroborated it several times.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention. My colleagues and I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

    The Chair: As usual, we'll start with Mr. Lunney.

[English]

    Mr. Lunney will be followed by Monsieur Bigras, Mr. Herron, Mr. Comartin, and Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Lunney.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

    It's a very interesting discussion here today, with some very interesting and I would say serious issues.

    First, I'll just make the comment that the PMRA is not directly under Health Canada, but seems to be shared with Agriculture Canada and Health Canada. Is that right? The PMRA reports.... Is there a line of reporting for PMRA?

    Mr. Ian Green: Yes, it reports to me, and it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

    Mr. James Lunney: Oh, it is directly responsible. Thank you for clarifying that.

    I'm having some trouble with some numbers here, because I see from the remarks of Commissioner Gélinas that commitments to action were made in 1988, 1994, and 2000. We're so many years later, almost 15 years later, and I see numbers like maybe only six products have actually been thoroughly investigated, and those have been removed. Yet I see that the Minister of Health, in questioning in the House, stated on October 7 that “As of March 31, 61 pesticide active ingredients have been addressed”, which “has resulted in the phase-out of 53 pesticides...”.

    So how does Health Canada reconcile the analysis of the commissioner with the statement by the Minister of Health? Mr. Green, I heard you mention a figure of 23, I think. So maybe I'm having trouble with these numbers. Can you tell us where we're at in this?

    Mr. Ian Green: Based on the information I have, I believe the facts to be the following.

    As of today, 64 of the 405 active ingredients in question have been addressed, and in consequence of that, some 50 pesticides are off the market.

    I do want to underline that it is our intention to address 40% of those 405 active ingredients by March 2004 and to address all of them by 2006-07, which essentially puts us on the same timetable as the United States.

    Given previous reports and the commissioner's reference to previous undertakings on this exercise or on the question of re-evaluation, I can well understand the question would arise, how do you know you're going to make progress in terms of meeting these deadlines?

    In her report, I think the commissioner notes that as of 2001-02 there were some 44 FTEs assigned to the re-evaluation priority. I want to underline that, as of today, we have over 100 FTEs in the Pest Management Review Agency who have this responsibility, and a significant part of the resources that were allocated, new resources we received in the context of the new legislation, a significant number of them, have been allocated to the priority of re-evaluation.

    If you'll allow me, there are two other things that I think are really important to emphasize. It's really important to remember that in terms of pesticides approved pre-1995, they were approved at that time on the best science available, and that in looking at them we have in fact undertaken to prioritize them to ensure we focus on those areas that are of highest concern in terms of moving forward on re-evaluation, which in my own non-scientific way I would describe as where there are uses on food, where they involve exposure of children, where risks have been identified internationally, and where we have specific concerns from a Canadian context.

    Mr. James Lunney: So from what you've said, there has been a sudden increase in the number of products that have been evaluated in a very short period of time. How did you accomplish this? Did you put in more money? Is it an increase in funding or an increase in staff? Did you change your procedures? Did you simplify procedures or simply decrease the rigour of your assessments?

    Mr. Ian Green: I'll ask my colleague Wendy Sexsmith to help me out.

    I think it's a combination of two or three things. One of the reasons the re-evaluation process took time was that in order to do it, we had to build a new program, we had to adjust the science, and we had to find the resources. It took time to do that. The agency was in fact created in 1995, and that process then followed from it.

    I personally think the reason it is moving ahead, and can move ahead, and needs to in the future is a combination whereby, having put the program together, having developed the scientific framework for proceeding and having found the resources, we're now in a position to try to move ahead in terms of building on and continuing to achieve the targets I've talked about.

    Wendy, is there anything you want to add?

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Acting Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): I don't think so.

    Mr. James Lunney: As another question, I think there's a sticky little issue about formulants that manufacturers don't seem to want to put on the label, many of which potentiate the pesticide and may have serious concerns in themselves. Have you made any progress in dealing with this issue as to making that information available so that if somebody does have a toxic response, people dealing with it might have some idea of what they're dealing with in a pesticide product?

    Mr. Ian Green: I'll ask my colleague to help me out.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Thank you.

    First, prior to us establishing the formulants program, we looked at the pesticide product as a whole. So the safety of the whole product was assessed, and that included the formulants.

    But two years ago we consulted on a new approach to formulants, where we would be looking not only at the product but at the formulants on an individual basis. Next month we expect to come out with the formulants program, which will essentially set out how we will deal with formulants in the future.

    In addition, we will be publishing a complete list of all the formulants in Canada. This approach is really more or less harmonized with the U.S. There are a few differences where we're proposing to be more protective, and as you had indicated, the issue of putting formulants on the label has been addressed under the new Pest Control Products Act. The list one and list two formulants will have to be on labels.

    So we have made progress. We will be coming out with the program in two or three weeks, with a complete list of all the formulants, more or less harmonized with the U.S. but more protective.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney. We'll come back to you in the second round.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bigras, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much, Mr.  Chairman. Before I bring up the issue of re-evaluating active ingredients, I'd like to deal with an aspect of the report that caught my attention.

    Paragraph 1.37 on page 12 of the environment commissioner's report refers to the frequent use of temporary registration. This procedure basically entails approving pesticides pending further study.

    Mr. Chairman, the commissioner stated that in 2001-2002, 58 per cent of registrations were approved. In addition, 370 temporary registrations were extended, some from one to five times. Of 30 cases studied by the environment commissioner, half did not involve any public consultation nor full scientific data.

    After the environment commissioner's report was released, a spokesperson for the PMRA, Marc Richard, said that

temporary registration was granted only when minor things were missing from the file and that no temporary approval would be given if something major was missing.

    I would like to know what, in your opinion, constitutes an incomplete file. I know that no temporary approval is given when major elements are missing. However, I would like you to tell me what you would consider to be a minor missing element from a file.

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: Thank you for the question, because I think it's one of the important issues that we need to deal with in terms of outlining where we are.

    I do want to start by underlining that I don't believe temporary registration is in any way a shortcut. The same rigorous scientific evaluation that applies to full registration applies to temporary registrations. The difference is, in a temporary registration there is provision to allow for additional confirmatory or conditional data that may be required.

    An example would be one I alluded to in my speech, which is where, for example, as we move into full production, the manufacturing data that we have may change, and we can require that. The other is conditional data that deals with environmental studies that could use, as an example, the question of “environmental fate”, as it's called. I want to underline that in asking for this information there is an extremely important issue that not only is it based on a rigorous scientific evaluation, but it is also the case that if there is any doubt, we can build in significant safety margins in terms of approving the product for use. This can in fact involve levels that are a thousand times less than would be required or suggested by the animal studies that we have.

    You've talked about the numbers. I think it's important to note that of all the pesticides we have on the market at the moment, less than 3% are in fact temporary registrations. With respect to the continuation or rollover of these temporary registrations, the issue that arises is that sometimes we need the data from a growing season, and sometimes it takes two or three years to get that data.

º  (1630)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Green, I would like to know whether, for example, information on the probable effects of a substance on a child's central nervous system, in a given file, would be considered a major or minor missing piece. We need to know how you determine that. You may launch into a long explanation, but personally, I just want to know whether you consider the concrete example I just gave to be an important factor.

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes? Is it possible that studies showing effects on the nervous system would not prevent temporary registration from going ahead? Has that ever happened?

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: The impacts of pesticides on nervous systems are very much part of the basic scientific evaluation that we do. They are built in, among other things, to the special emphasis that we place on children, but in form are very much part of the scientific evaluation that we do.

    In terms of temporary registrations--I assume you're connecting the two issues, and I will ask my colleague Wendy Sexsmith to help me out--the question of neurotoxicity has arisen in the case of two temporary registrations. In both of those cases, it has been done in close collaboration with the United States, where the decision has been made that collecting that kind of information would be helpful, and it is predicated on the fact that this is a new and evolving science area. But I want to emphasize that the issue of impacts on central nervous systems is in fact an ongoing element of the kind of rigorous scientific evaluation that we do. It has come up in two temporary registrations.

    I'll ask Wendy if she has anything she wants to add.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I would just like to re-emphasize the fact that with temporary registrations, the first requirement is a complete data package with all our required studies. We go through the screening to make sure that all the studies are there. We pre-review all the studies to make sure those studies are valid, and then we actually review the science that's contained in the studies.

    As Mr. Green has indicated, the issue of dealing with the risks to children and neurotoxicity issues are already captured in the suite of studies that we require. However, if during that review process we see that there's an indication of potential sensitivity for children, what we will do is add additional safety factors, and if through that process the risks are acceptable, we would then ask for this requirement, which is actually a conditional requirement. No country in the world asks for that neurotoxicity study up front. It's a very special, particular study. That doesn't mean we don't get that information in the package in other types of studies.

    So that's the process. If in fact during that review process we found sensitivities and there was not a way to add safety factors to make that risk acceptable, then there would be no registration.

    In the two instances in which we did this, we were reviewing these products either completely jointly with the U.S. or as kind of a work-share with the U.S. It was a decision of both countries to take that approach, but our approach was protective of children.

º  (1635)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    Ms. Gélinas.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise two questions.

    First, our report says that in 2001-2002, 14 of the 24 substances registered, or 58 per cent, obtained temporary registration.

    Both for our benefit and for that of parliamentarians, it might be useful to take a very specific example. In paragraph 47 of our report, we refer to a substance that was given temporary registration. It's a pesticide used as a wood preservative. The evaluation was completed in 17 days, whereas on average this kind of work takes around 550 days. Furthermore, over 75 scientific studies had to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the product was put on the market under temporary registration within 17 days. That gives parliamentarians a general idea of how the agency works.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Mr. Herron, please.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to pick up as best I can from section 1.54 of the commissioner's report itself. My questions are directed to Mr. Green.

    Clearly, there's a concern the commissioner has outlined as to the fact that the PMRA has a very ambitious target with respect to having a re-evaluation of all products that were registered before 1994. You should be applauded on your target. I come from a corporate background, where if you can't measure, you can't manage it. Although there was some reference made that there's been a rally since Ms. Gélinas' numbers were reviewed in March, we still have to get an awful lot of work done between now and 2006, and I think we would all concur with that. We're relying heavily on the U.S. approvals as well, but they've a fair amount of resources to review that process.

    I would actually ask a very specific question. I think for sound reasons we're very apprehensive about whether you're going to hit your target, because the history on this subject doesn't say anything different. What steps are being taken on a continuous basis to ensure that target is being met? Specifically, would you be amenable to reporting back to this committee on an annual basis in writing on the progress being made, as opposed to having to go through an audit process? I think we can agree together that the process has been slow. Would the PMRA and Health Canada be amenable to reporting back to this committee annually on how we're doing heading towards the target of 2006? And why not, if you're doing the work anyway?

    Mr. Ian Green: One of the reasons I'm here, aside from the kind invitation of the chair, is to underline the seriousness with which we need to address some of these issues. I personally, as the deputy minister, feel this is an important priority for the department; it's not the PMRA's alone.

    Second, we do have, I think, the resources, as I mentioned earlier, and a serious work plan for moving ahead. I am reinforced in my sense that we can do this by the fact that we're working closely with the United States. I think that harmonization of effort will work to our advantage.

    And yes, I would be quite prepared to report on an annual basis. I would note that the new legislation in fact provides for an annual report, but as to providing an undertaking to report annually on progress in meeting re-evaluation targets, I'd be prepared to do that.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. John Herron: I think we've made some progress in that regard. We have essentially 400 products still to review, or thereabouts. There's a commitment from Health Canada that we'll have a chat on an annual basis on how we're doing with respect to obtaining that target.

    My second question is with respect to the temporary permits. The commissioner pointed out that 58% of all new approvals had been done on a temporary basis. Mr. Green has pointed out that there's still an immense amount of rigour in that process. But I find hard to believe that when you first drew up the capacity for having a temporary permit, you dreamt for a minute that over half of the permits were going to be temporary. Do you have any documentation internally about what you thought an appropriate threshold would be for temporary permits prior to your beginning this process.?

    Mr. Ian Green: I'll ask Wendy to help me out.

    I guess there are a couple of pieces of context that are important with regard to temporary registrations that I would like to provide. Part of the context, starting from the point that a rigorous scientific evaluation is fundamental, is moving to bring new products into play that will be advantageous and beneficial from the point of view of our fundamental objective, which is protecting the health of Canadians and the environment. There is this underlying sense that somehow this is a way around, a way of avoiding. I want to underline that the fundamentals are the same in looking at them, that the request for additional information with whatever safeguards we build in is appropriate and that the objective is to get better products in play for the health and environment of Canadians.

    Second, there is the suggestion that we're extending on a long-term basis. The fact is that the regulations, as I understand them, essentially require you to do it for one year. I don't know how realistic that is, given that some of the information you're looking for may legitimately take two or three crop seasons to determine. So we're caught to some degree in the situation where it looks like we're constantly extending them, when I think in some cases a two- or three-year timeframe in getting the information and analysing it effectively within our framework is a not illegitimate development.

    As to whether we have internal data for what we thought was an appropriate threshold when we started, I'll ask Wendy.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: To repeat, nobody applies for temporary registration. When a registrant with a new pesticide coming to Canada wants a registration, they have to provide us with a complete data package, with chemistry, health information, environment information, and efficacy information. That usually is more than 250 studies. We review that and make a decision at the end of the process, which normally takes 18 months, so that gives an idea of the intensity of the review. The decision at that point is whether or not the registration could be full or temporary. So it's not a planned thing. People don't apply for it. We don't have a line above which we say no, we're not going to accept any more temporaries this year.

    I don't debate the point that was made that 58% of the category A's in the year the audit looked at were temporary. I think the other figure that's important is the 97% put forward earlier by the deputy, because what that indicates is that we may register on a temporary basis only after we've found that the risks are acceptable. When the registrant comes back with the confirmatory data, we review them and make a final decision. We consult on that final decision. The other point I'd like to make is that when we do register a new pesticide, if it happens to be a temporary, we may not consult at that point, but we do put a summary risk assessment document out for everybody to see, and then, when the information comes back, we'll consult and make the final decision. This is very normal practice in the pesticide regulatory sphere. All the OECD countries take this kind of approach.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

    Mr. Comartin, please.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Green, it was good to hear that you saw this as a priority, because I think members of this committee and members of Parliament generally were quite disturbed by the commissioner's report and had concerns about the agency's ability to meet the timelines that you're indicating you still intend to meet. I think I can say on behalf of a good number of environmental groups who have approached me on this that they also are very concerned about it. I just wish to add some emphasis to the importance of this project.

    As to the harmonization process with the United States on these evaluations and reassessments, for how many of the 400 that are outstanding are we relying on the United States for the bulk or all of the reassessment?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We are and will be relying on probably 80%, if not more, of the number that's left.

    It's important to understand that the U.S. has a much larger budget than we do. It's a much larger country. They've put enormous resources into this. So our whole program, which we consulted on pre-2001 and then put in place in 2001, was really premised on the fact that we would be able to get the 405 done if we did a number of things. One of those things would be to piggyback, work closely, and use information from the U.S. In many cases, we're working very closely, jointly, for example, on the heavy duty wood preservatives. In other cases, we work with them as they work through their decision, and then we look at how the context works for Canada and make our decision.

    One of the other programs we put in place is to take the results of the U.S. decision and really use it directly.

    To really answer your question, we're highly dependent on the steps the U.S. will be taking in order to complete our program, but they are under a legal mandate to finish their assessments in the same timeframe that we have proposed.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: All of the work that is being done in Canada, if I understand, within the PMRA is being done by staff who work directly for the agency.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That's correct.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: You don't contract out any of it?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, we actually tried to contract out. The U.S. contracts out a lot of their work. They still have a lot of staff, but they contract out a lot of their work.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Ms. Sexsmith, I only have a certain number of minutes, so let me try to get this through. Can you tell me how much is contracted out in the United States? Do you know that?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I couldn't give you a good figure, but we can certainly get it for you.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I would appreciate it if you would give it to the committee.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, sure.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Can you tell me if you've done any evaluation of the technical skills and more particularly the independence of these private sector scientific bodies that are doing this evaluation? Have you looked into that at all, even on a spot-check basis?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No. We would not have ourselves. That would be something the U.S. government would do.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you know if they've done it?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We could certainly find out. I wouldn't have the facts on that.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, I'd ask you to provide us with that information.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Sure, yes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Let me pursue this perhaps with a concluding statement, and maybe I'll ask for a comment, if you would.

    There certainly have been concerns over the close ties between some of these agencies and the pesticide producers. Any evaluation done by people who are caught in at least the appearance of a conflict of interest would be what I would be looking for. The inquiries you make as to how the United States is doing these, and who in fact is doing it, is the focus of where I'm going with my questions.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Thank you.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    We now have Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Tonks, and then the chair.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The whole subject is incredibly multifaceted, so I'm going to zero in on one that keeps surfacing in the riding that I have the privilege of serving. Farmers come to me and tell me that a pesticide being used in the United States is not approved for use in Canada. The pesticide in the United States is ostensibly cheaper as an input cost, and probably safer because it's a newer invention.

    I'm wondering out loud if the lack of funds holds up the process so that farmers are waiting one, two, or three years before a new product is approved. Farmers generally look on pesticides as input costs. That's why you'll find, with research, that they rarely use more than they need to because of that cost. There must be something holding up this process, and I'd like to find out why.

    The other aspect to that, of course, is the harmonization process itself. How complete is it? Are you well enough funded to do an equal exchange with the United States or with other countries in the world? Are you harmonizing with countries in Europe, for instance, or Australia, or wherever?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Thank you for asking that question, because it's actually one of my favourite areas.

    On the issue of products and access in Canada, I guess what I'd like to say is that since 1996 we've been working very closely with the U.S. We have a joint review program in place with the U.S. Office of Pesticide Programs for agricultural chemical types of products, for reduced-risk types of products, and for biologicals. Through that process, as well as a number of other programs that we put in place to encourage registrants to submit pesticides to Canada, we actually have 73% of the active ingredients that are considered reduced risk in the U.S. here in Canada.

    One of the issues we do face in Canada is that we're a small country. Companies don't necessarily choose to come to Canada first. Historically, they would go to the U.S. for the “hort” crops. They come to Canada for the grains and oilseeds.

    Through our joint review process we've been able to marry those two pieces, so that in fact what we're getting is newer, safer technology, both in the horticultural sector and in oilseeds and grains, at the same time. We've seen a real change in the timeframe between entry into the U.S. and entry into Canada because of that. I guess that's one aspect of your question.

    I think on the other aspect, about how harmonized we are and are we harmonizing with other countries, the short answer to the second part is yes. The short answer to the first part, as to how harmonized we are, is that we're very closely harmonized with the U.S. There are some differences yet.

    We are working toward fixing them through our NAFTA process. We have a NAFTA meeting actually coming up in December where stakeholders, all three governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, will talk about this and we'll hopefully move further along. I think that harmonization actually is a very good news story. And not to talk too long, because I think it's a very exciting topic, but we do work very closely with the European Commission, the EU countries, and Australia and New Zealand.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Is the budget sufficient to do the things you want to do?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, that....

    Mr. Julian Reed: Shall we say no?

    Mr. Ian Green: She'll never agree with that. But to stop her before she does any harm, I believe that we are in fact moving in the right direction in terms of our budget. We would probably always love more resources, but in fact given the additional resources we had, given the hard work of a wide range of people in terms of supporting the additional resources, we are going to be able to take our full-time equivalents, prior to the resources coming into play, from being slightly under 300 to approximately 550 people.

    We actually can move ahead in terms of some of the areas we talked about. The budget will in fact increase from about $32 million, prior to the infusion of the resources, to about $46 million a year. We are in fact investing both in FTEs and in dollars in significant resources in trying to improve the ability of the agency.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Julian Reed: Will we get to the point where farmers will be able to say they have an approved product, a new, improved product, at the same time as their American friends?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I would say we're already there. We've had more than 46 registrations that have been done jointly between the U.S. and Canada. We continue to work closely with the U.S., and also with the growers and the registrants, to encourage them to use this process.

    I would like to add the point, because one of the concerns around harmonization is potentially lowering the standard, that it isn't the case. It doesn't take things to the lowest common denominator. It either has a stabilizing effect or it takes us to a higher common denominator. In no way is health or safety being jeopardized through our harmonization processes. In fact, we feel we make a much better decision if we have scientists on the U.S. side and scientists on the Canadian side doing a review together, and then making a risk-based decision based on all of the information and with all of the scientists together.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chair, can I jump in for a second?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: On the harmonization aspect, one of the things we have looked at is the joint review. We were saying that it doesn't achieve the gain it was supposed to. There are still some problems that the PMRA will have to address, and I refer you to paragraph 1.70.

    We note that the agency has had problems coordinating priorities and scheduling with the U.S. evaluator. It still doesn't know, on this whole process of harmonization, how much money the agency will be able to save because it doesn't track the cost of the evaluations and the level of effort in going through the evaluation process.

    On the timeliness, maybe I can let Neil give you a little portrait of the situation at the moment.

    Mr. Neil Maxwell (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you.

    We raised a number of concerns in terms of the timeliness of the process. We looked, for example, at registrations in March, and we found over 30% of them were overdue. We looked at minor-use applications that same month, and 25% of them were overdue. You may be interested in taking a look at some of the numbers we present in exhibit 1.10. For all four categories of submissions for both screening and scientific review, the agency wasn't able to meet its 90% target.

    So there are quite a number of concerns there about access.

    Mr. Ian Green: Can we just quickly provide a couple of comments?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll say a couple of things on the efficiencies through harmonization.

    I think it's true that when we first entered into working rigorously with the U.S., we underestimated the amount of work it would take to coordinate. Reviewing a pesticide is complex, difficult, and scientific, and it takes a lot of work to coordinate it in one country.

    When you put two countries together, there is additional work, that is true. However, we think it's worth it for Canada, using my scenario showing that if you're going to get the horticultural uses and the oilseeds and grains uses in both countries at the same time; it's worth that extra effort. In addition, what we're seeing is an addition of our ability together to expand into crop groups. So in fact we're doing a lot of what we would call minor uses up front with the first new registration, as opposed to three, four, or five years down the line, one at a time.

    So while that's quite true, this is not a process that is light on need for management and coordination. We do feel it brings benefits to the country with regard to quicker access to newer, safer technology sooner, and then we don't have to do some of this work later.

    So I do believe the efficiencies are there, but in a different way.

    Thank you.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Tonks, Madam Scherrer, Mr. Szabo, and the chair.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your input today.

    On page 10 of the report of the commissioner, paragraph 1.38 says the regulations under the Pest Control Products Act stipulate--and this is, I guess, a quantification of the issue of re-evaluations--that temporary registrations may be applied for. Over the last six years more than 370 temporary registrations were extended, in most cases more than once, some up to five times. The commissioner points out that this further prolongs the use of products whose risks had not been precisely assessed.

    Now, you just stated that for the most part--and it's my inference I'm drawing--the products that are being extended up to five times are not high risk. Is that correct?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: My inference is wrong?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

    If you don't mind, what I and the deputy were saying is that products aren't registered without a rigorous scientific evaluation and without a determination of acceptable risk.

    Maybe what is confusing is that there is an interest, certainly in Canada in all of the user groups, to have access to newer, safer technology, and there are some products that are designated reduced-risk products. Maybe there was some confusion around me talking about that and then talking about the temporary registration issue. But we didn't ever say that temporary registrations were extended for only reduced-risk products. That wasn't what we were saying.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: If you couple that with the statement by the commissioner under paragraph 1.46 on page 11, it says they found that in more than half the evaluations.... Now, these are evaluations, and I'm not sure whether I understand the difference between evaluations and re-evaluations. If you have products that have been re-evaluated five times, I would assume they are products that have minimal risk. But the commissioner is saying, “We found that in more than half, evaluators expedited the submissions, skipped screening steps, cut the scientific review short, or skipped the public consultation stage”. It seems to me if you couple that with the magnitude of the issue, then the public should have a right to ask how we could ever be satisfied that an empirical, upfront, and prioritized strategy is in process.

    You replied to Mr. Bigras--or Mr. Herron--that you're prepared to report annually on how you're actually doing. But it seems to me the extent of the issue is so large, with new products also coming in for evaluation, that you will never really catch up on it.

    Am I being unduly pessimistic?

    Mr. Ian Green: Let me start. I'm glad you raised paragraph 1.46 in terms of the steps not always being followed, because I think this is a really good issue on which to have a discussion within the committee.

    A fundamental point that we want to make today, which I think is essential to underlining the role of the agency, is that we believe we conduct a world-class, rigorous, scientific evaluation in terms of what we do. It has four components to it: the pre-review, the preliminary review, the full evaluation, and then decision. This process involves putting in together a wide range of expertise in terms of the approvals we make, expertise that can cover crucial issues like human toxicology, occupational bystander exposure, food residue exposure, environmental science, etc.

    The commissioner has indicated...and I think we're talking in paragraph 1.46 about the full registration process. I think we've moved from other issues. In our evaluation framework, which we're very proud of, occasionally to expedite or manage an approval a decision is made that some aspect of the process will in fact be facilitated in terms of moving ahead on the decision.

    Going back to my point, this is largely because we think it is important in some cases to try to move ahead as quickly as possible in bringing pesticides into play that will reinforce our mandate in terms of safety and the health and environment of Canadians.

    At any point in the exercise that decision is made, bearing in mind this is a peer-reviewed exercise and all decisions are reviewed by senior science managers in the agency, any decision along those lines would be reviewed and assessed by those senior science managers.

    So this goes back all the way, Mr. Chair, to one of your points about the recommendations we accept or don't accept. This is one for which we feel we have a framework. We feel deviations from it are limited, are appropriate, and have the appropriate safeguards to reinforce the fact that we're conducting our mandate effectively.

    It would be really interesting to hear the commissioner's views on this, because I think this is one that is important to discuss in terms of this report and the operations of the agency.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Madame Gélinas, s'il vous plait.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As the deputy minister clearly stated in the opening of his statement, we're not discussing the framework. What we are saying is that the framework is not always applied.

    Second, with respect to the re-evaluation of pesticides, the work hasn't started so far, if you look at what has been done, and if you want I can come back later to clarify some of the numbers. It's more a question of interpretation than anything else.

    Let me first ask my colleague, Peter Morrison, to briefly tell you a little bit about what we found when we came to the conclusion that steps were skipped and what kinds of stages were skipped.

    The Chair: Mr. Morrison, please do it very briefly.

    Mr. Peter Morrison (Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): We looked at all of the steps in the process the deputy minister has outlined, and we identified that in some cases the detailed evaluation was cut short in the scientific review. In other cases, the public consultation—in which additional comments would be solicited from those affected by the pesticide registration—was not followed. And in some cases, early steps in the process were not followed, which meant that the scientific evaluators had to work with incomplete data and had to make significant assumptions about what the risk might or might not be in a particular case.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    I see we have to move on to Madame Scherrer, Mr. Szabo, and the chair, and then have the second round.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I intended to ask some very specific questions, but what I have been hearing since the beginning of our meeting makes me want to ask a very frank question.

    We are here today to consider a report by the commissioner, whose mandate is to study how pesticides are managed. I am sure that both Health Canada and the commissioner have the same goal, which is to protect all Canadians and ensure their safety. From what I am hearing today, however, it seems to me that there really is a problem. The number of products on the market that have not been evaluated is constantly growing, the analyses are becoming increasingly complex and the products that are now on the market all need to be re-evaluated. That makes for an ever-increasing task, and we are not able to put our finger on what all that adds up to in terms of effort.

    I am tempted to ask you if the problem is due to a lack of money or a lack of qualified staff. I do not believe that our purpose here today is to assign blame and then go away happy. We have a very serious problem right now, and the way it has been outlined shows us that it is a very real one. We are still losing the battle. Moreover, it does not appear that steps are being planned to address the fact that the new products will have multiple uses and that their use will be more and more widespread.

    We are not in a position to say that we have taken the necessary steps to deal with the situation in the coming years and that there will be enough soldiers on the ground to win the battle. Is that because of a lack of resources, staff, money or political will? In any case, something is missing somewhere. When we find the source of the problem, maybe we will be able to win this battle in a not-too-distant future.

»  (1710)  

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: I'm actually more positive. I believe we have a sound framework in place in terms of the evaluation we do of pesticides.

    There's no question that we have challenges. We have a new and emerging legislative framework within which we can operate and within which we have the basis for meeting those challenges in terms of progress in a number of areas, such as information on adverse reporting, information on sales data, etc., reporting, improving accountability, and codifying in the legislation the need to pursue special and sensitive approaches with respect to certain sub-populations like children. So I actually think we have an opportunity, as the commissioner has alluded to. Just because there's a legislative framework or new resources doesn't mean we'll get it right, but I actually think they give us the basis to get it right as we move into the future.

    I guess one of the things I've been anxious to underline is that I believe, as we move ahead in building in the new resources, we will seek to ensure that we recruit. These are the real important people in this. We will recruit, orient, and help these people to learn, to ensure they have the competencies of significant new staff, while retaining the ones we have, so they can do the work that is fundamental to achieving the kinds of objectives we've talked about.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: When it comes down to it, the procedure for evaluating and re-evaluating products is basically the same. Nonetheless, what are you going to do about the fact that the process, which is more complex, requires more staff, that the studies have to be more thorough and that the number of products has increased substantially? Have you hired more staff? Do you have additional budgets? Have you made plans to do more than you do right now, given that we are looking at exponential growth? Everything indicates that we will have to invest substantially more in this area.

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: We have invested more resources, as I mentioned earlier. We are moving to significantly increase the number of staff from slightly less than 400 to approximately 550. We are investing additional resources.

    An extremely important point is that we're working very closely with international partners in making sure we have the international cooperation and information necessary to deal with the kinds of complex emerging issues you're dealing with. We're also going to invest significantly to make sure our staff, as I mentioned, have the competencies to basically manage those kinds of issues.

    So I think we have the resources, the relationships, and the intention to invest in human resources that will help us to move ahead. There are challenges, but I think we have the basics.

    Wendy, do you want to add anything?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I have just a couple of things.

    I think on re-evaluation, one of our challenges is to do the 405. We've committed to do them. But under the new act, with adverse effects reporting, which has already been alluded to, and the requirement to re-evaluate every 15 years, the adverse effects reporting will provide an early warning signal in the future. So that's the way we'll get through this lump, and then we'll be able to deal with the future with those sorts of advantages. We're moving more and more closely to other countries, so we'll be able to share more work over time.

    On the new products, it's a very similar kind of situation. We see somewhere between 45 and 65 new products a year on average over the last five or six years. A high year could be 65 or 70 and a low year could be 45. We don't really expect to see that increase over time. But you're right, there is the complexity issue. I think that's where we would look to the resources we will have, plus our ability to work closely with our international partners.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Merci, Madame Scherrer.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you.

    In the opening of the report on page 1, I think it's useful to remind everybody of what paragraph 1.1 says:

Despite substantial improvements in some areas over the last eight years, the federal government is not adequately ensuring that many pesticides used in Canada meet current standards for protecting health and the quality of the environment. The range of weaknesses we identified raises serious questions about the overall management of the health and environmental risks associated with pesticides.

    Ms. Gélinas, what risks do you see? For instance, if there were a health risk associated with this, where PMRA had not done its work on a timely or careful basis, could the federal government be at risk of being sued?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It's an interesting question, but it's not really my responsibility to answer that question. On the risks, I'm not a toxicologist, so I cannot answer that question.

    Still, the fact remains that Canadians cannot be sure that the pesticides on the market as we speak are safe, because most of the re-evaluation work has not been done.

    It's also not clear from the responses given to us by PMRA and the Department of Health that the witnesses we have identified will be addressed properly.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: In fact, that was one of your closing statements, that in discussing your recommendations with PMRA, Health Canada, and other stakeholders, you had been given little indication they intended to act decisively. You gave an example of them accepting your recommendation to strengthen pesticide evaluations, but then saying that no further strengthening was required. I consider this substantively to be a vote of non-confidence in the PMRA.

    Ms. Sexsmith, you are the acting director of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. I would like to ask you whether you believe you have the resources, the mandate, and the legislative tools, etc., necessary for you to be able to discharge your responsibilities to a level that, I suppose, is expected, given the recommendations of the Auditor General's department—and certainly of your own minister.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll answer yes. I'll caveat that with the point that resources are always a challenge, but we have the mandate now, and we will have an enhanced ability to do our job under the new Pest Control Products Act. We're looking forward very much to having that proclaimed in the spring.

    So my short answer is yes.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: With regard to the specific recommendations, which we obviously don't have time to go into, did you personally develop responses to the recommendations of the commissioner?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: They were developed through consultation internally with our senior staff. Some of the recommendations affected other departments and those were then developed in consultation with them.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Do you consider the report to be a negative report for your agency?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There are aspects of it that I think are quite negative. At the same time, there were aspects that were very positive. We were really appreciative of the statement that progress has been made.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Ms. Gélinas, you indicated that you would be pleased to provide us with more details on key areas. I assume those are details that would not otherwise be included in the formal report. If so, I would like to take you up on your offer. That would be helpful. If you think it's helpful to the committee to have additional information on what you describe as key areas, I would certainly take you up on that.

    Finally, Mr. Green, you described PMRA as a world class organization. In view of the report of the commissioner, do you still feel comfortable with the categorization of world class, given the deficiencies that have been noted?

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Ian Green: I think I said we had a world class framework for our scientific evaluation. I think the agency is an excellent organization. We have challenges, but I go back to my point. It is extremely important, I think, to underline the point that we have the framework to manage pesticides into the future. In terms of the legislation, the regulations, and the resources, to echo Wendy's answer, I think we have the ability to manage these issues into the future.

    I do suggest that in terms of a number of the points that have been made concerning the commissioner's report, we need to factor them in as we move ahead. But the thing I want to underline is that I am confident that with the framework we have we will be able to continue to ensure that we have processes to reinforce our responsibilities regarding the health and environment of Canadians.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: As an information request, you indicated in your opening remarks that there were some areas of the commissioner's report with which you had a disagreement. I'm not sure, because I didn't have the document of your whole statement, whether we got them all. If not, could you please provide the committee specifically with the recommendations with which you do not agree and the reasons why you do not agree with those recommendations?

    Mr. Ian Green: Most of my comments in fact do not deal with the recommendations, but with the summary part, which talks about the use in particular of temporary registrations and re-evaluation. I would be happy, in terms of reviewing my testimony today, to look at the report. We do have responses to the recommendations that are contained in the report. The point I wanted to underline was the fact that I think the re-evaluation process we have is going to move ahead effectively, that there is a context within which to understand temporary registrations, and that the foundation of all of this is a rigorous scientific evaluation that we think is effective in terms of our mandate.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Madam Gélinas, please.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: As I said in my opening statement, the most important aspect for us is re-evaluation. In our recommendations we were asking for a clear game plan, an action plan, on how the agency will make sure it will respect its deadline of 2006 in re-evaluating around 400 pesticides.

    When you look at the opening statement--and now there is a clear target that about 40% of the re-evaluation will be completed by next spring. I urge the committee to really ask the agency to table the action plan so we can see exactly what its plan is to get there. Then, as Mr. Herron said earlier, make sure that on a yearly basis we are able to see progress in figuring out if some of the weaknesses we have identified have been addressed over time.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    I have three questions, very briefly.

    Mr. Green, have you read the committee's report that was submitted three years ago to the Parliament of Canada?

    Mr. Ian Green: It was a little while ago, Mr. Chairman, but I did.

    The Chair: As you can see, then, we are revisiting issues that were raised in that report. It's a point that needs to be stressed because we don't seem to be making adequate progress.

    For instance, my next question is on the issue of compliance. If you read together paragraphs 1.43 and 1.83, on the protection of the users of pesticides, it says “Some users may not read English or French sufficiently to understand complex labels.” Or “Some agricultural pesticides may have 30 or more pages of directions in fine print.” It goes on, “Some label instructions are hard to follow....” Then there is an exhibit. “Not following instructions could affect the health of users....” And so on.

    It is the whole question of whether the PMRA is assuming that its instructions are adopted. Is the agency satisfied that there is compliance in the field about its labelling and instructions?

    Mr. Ian Green: You had three points.

    The Chair: Yes, the next will come after your answer.

    Mr. Ian Green: Okay.

    The issue of assumptions, I think, is an important one. It is my sense that it is obvious we're going to have to make assumptions in the context of.... When you take results, for example, that are science from labs and you look at their application in the field, you're going to have to make assumptions at the end of the day.

    I guess there are two basic sets of assumptions that are in play. One is the assumption about how widespread will be the use of a pesticide we approve. There we err--and I think the commissioner would agree with this--on the side of highly conservative estimates in terms of the use of the pesticide, for which we are criticized in certain quarters but to which I think we rigorously hold.

»  (1725)  

    The Chair: In which quarters are you criticized?

    Mr. Ian Green: Some people feel, basically, that we are being unduly conservative and they may well have a different sort of interest at play.

    The Chair: These people belong to which sector?

    Mr. Ian Green: I don't want to go there.

    The Chair: You should. This is a public meeting and you owe it to the public.

    Mr. Ian Green: The other set of assumptions that is made is how it will be used in terms of user behaviour. In terms of user behaviour, it raises a question as to whether or not we are making the wrong assumptions about user behaviour. I guess there are two pieces of information that we work off in terms of that. One is primarily from provinces and territories, where most of the information that I'm aware of indicates that user behaviour is appropriate, and the second would be the sampling that is done by the CFIA that measures MRLs. One would assume if user behaviour was being conducted in a way that was irresponsible, you would see it turning up in their samples. As far as I'm aware, of the 44,000 samples they did, 98% of them basically indicated there was no evidence...in fact, it is at acceptable levels. In the 1% or 2% of cases where there is a problem, we would obviously, given our mandate, be moving to deal with that issue.

    In terms of the assumptions question, I think it's a very important one, but that's the basis on which we're proceeding in terms of how we deal with the assumptions, which I think are part of the work we do.

    The Chair: Mr. Green, I regret to say that it seems to me that your oath as a public servant would require that you tell us who is criticizing you in other sectors, or whatever, rather than not answering my question, unless that is your preference. If that is the case, it is your privilege, of course, but it seems to me that this is a serious oversight on your part.

    My final question is this, Mr. Green. The PMRA has a double mandate, and Mr. Szabo has already explored that issue. You have indicated to us this afternoon that you are at times under pressure in order to expedite approvals. At the same time, your mandate is also to protect public health. Are you comfortable with that double mandate, and do you think the legislation ought to be examined and perhaps be reworded?

    Mr. Ian Green: When I used the word “expedited”--

    The Chair: In reply to a question by Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Ian Green: Yes. It was to approve a product the use of which would enhance the health and environmental safety of Canadians. So it wasn't pressure to approve a product that was unsafe; it was to approve a product that would be beneficial from the point of view of our mandate. That's what I meant by expediting.

    The Chair: So you would be under pressure to approve a product from the public. Is that what you mean?

    Mr. Ian Green: Yes, and our own view that--

    The Chair: Could you give us a case where you were under pressure from the public to approve a product and not from industry? Or could you please tell us that you are never under pressure from industry to approve a product?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Perhaps I could step in and use the 17-day example that's actually in the report. That was a situation where the U.S. was moving forward to remove CCA, a heavy-duty wood preservative, and to approve a reduced-risk product for that use. We put all our resources into the approval in that very short period of time for that particular product with copper azole, ACQ, both of which were already registered in other uses in Canada. That was a situation where we put pressure on ourselves to get it done in order to expedite having a more reduced-risk product on the market for Canadians.

    Some other examples we have relate to programs for doing priority reviews for these types of products, whether they're biopesticides or reduced-risk types of products.

»  (1730)  

    The Chair: On the second round, Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    With the 17-day example you mentioned, you put pressure on yourselves to expedite. But according to Ms. Gélinas, the scientific studies, some 75 studies, I understand were expedited, but the evidence wasn't adequately looked at, and consultation steps were actually omitted. The average used to be 500 days, and now we're suddenly seeing pressure to do these things quickly. I'm wondering about the confidence Canadians can have that we're still doing thorough analysis and that safety is not being glossed over in the urgency to get these things expedited.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That was a very unusual situation. It was fully evaluated, using many resources in a very short period of time. Steps were skipped, but with management approval, under full understanding of the situation. So we would maintain that Canadians were protected. We do not normally consult on temporary registrations, we consult on full, so that wouldn't have been outside the normal process.

    Mr. James Lunney: Okay.

    I just want to take it another way. The example was mentioned in the report of West Nile virus, and I'm concerned about neurotoxicity, particularly the effect of pesticides on children. We have a lot of towns that are making decisions, like Ottawa itself, about not using pesticides on their green areas, their playgrounds, areas where children play, and so on. But with this sudden urgency about West Nile virus, we have to wonder about the panic on this. I understand that only one in 155 people even knows they have had any kind of infection, even a sniffle or any kind of febrile event, and children are virtually immune. Yet we see images of these people out spraying every puddle of water in the Ottawa area for West Nile virus, supposedly to protect children. Is anybody doing a risk analysis on this thing? Who undertakes this? Who makes a decision to spray? Who is monitoring the effects? Who is analysing the risks and the accumulation in the environment, in the ecosystem, in the children, for example? Who is doing this? Is it Health Canada?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Our role related to West Nile virus has been to ensure that the pesticides that are going to be used are acceptable for that use and to provide that kind of information through the various committees to the provinces. It's the provinces that actually make the decision to spray or not to spray, and in many cases it's also the municipalities. So our role has been to evaluate the pesticides, make sure those risks are acceptable, and work with the provinces to make sure they have that information. But it's really the provincial-municipal level that makes the decision to spray.

    Mr. James Lunney: So you're making a theoretical assessment ahead of time about use in a general sense, but is anybody monitoring to see what actual effects are taking place when this is suddenly used on a broad scale for questionable value? Are you monitoring that?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, PMRA has not been involved in the monitoring. It's important to point out that with the products that are used, it may be sudden for West Nile virus, but it is not sudden for that type of use, say, in the U.S., or even in some regions in Canada. But we are not monitoring that.

»  (1735)  

    Mr. James Lunney: I don't think we can take a lot of comfort from the fact that somewhere else, maybe in the United States, it's the way they do it. Who is monitoring? If there are concerns about these things accumulating, particularly for children with rapidly developing nervous systems, who take up these things far more quickly than adults, who is monitoring?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Certainly, the products that are registered for use are acceptable for that type of application. There's only one, which is malathion, that's registered for aerial application for adulticides. Most of the other products are registered for use in water. Many of the ones that were used this year are the biologicals, which are very well assessed and have a very low impact on humans and the environment. It would really be for the committees that are set up at the provincial and municipal levels to deal with whether or not they're going to spray.

    Mr. James Lunney: Ms. Gélinas, did you want to jump in?

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In fact, our report clearly points to serious shortcomings with respect to monitoring. That work is shared between Environment Canada, which looks after environmental monitoring, and Health Canada, which is responsible for monitoring health effects. In the public health area, it is obvious that no research is being done into the connection between pesticide use and the health effects of those pesticides. Yet that is clearly a federal government priority.

    When we looked at what Health Canada was doing, we were forced to conclude that the answer was practically nothing. Although new money was allocated for pesticide management, no funding went to Health Canada to undertake research in the environmental health field, especially regarding the risks that pesticides pose to children's health.

    Monitoring is the weak link in the system, given that we have other examples that show that monitoring would lay the groundwork for much better-informed decisions and faster re-evaluation of certain products.

    In the case of some pesticides, it is well known that one granule in the environment can kill a bird or small animal. We still have that type of situation in Canada in the year 2003. So there is practically no monitoring, either on the health side or on the environmental side.

[English]

    Mr. James Lunney: Just--

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney. We'll go to the others and then we'll come back to you.

    Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief.

    I spoke earlier about temporary registrations and I would now like to talk about re-evaluation, which I call a numbers game. Ms. Gélinas indicates to us in her report that six active ingredients have been re-evaluated. One of your officials, Marc Richard, told us 10 days ago that, as of March 31, 13 products had been re-evaluated and that, since that date, 28 new re-evaluations had been completed, for a total of 41. But after the environment commissioner's report came out, the minister said on October 8 that 61 active ingredients had been re-evaluated, and today we are being told that the number is 64.

    People have a right to accurate information. Can you provide the committee with complete reports of the 64 re-evaluations that have been carried out?

    Second, you have told us that you are prepared to make a commitment that all of the evaluations will be completed by 2006 and that your goal is to reach 40 per cent by March 2004. On October 7, I asked the environment commissioner if she had received guarantees that the 2006 objective would be met, and she answered that the PMRA had not given her any guarantees and that this was one of her concerns. Can you give us a firm commitment today that you will provide your action plan for meeting your objective by 2006, since you told the environment commissioner that 2006 was your goal? We would like to know what your objectives and timetables are for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Are you willing to commit to providing the committee with that action plan? When you talked about 2006, that was not just something you pulled out of nowhere. You must have based that on a plan and on objectives. Will you commit to providing the committee with that plan?

»  (1740)  

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: I mentioned earlier 64 active ingredients addressed. I will give you the background you've asked for. It's on our website as well, but I would be happy to send it to the member. I've undertaken to provide our work plan for the upcoming year for meeting the objectives I talked about, the 40% in March 2004 in particular.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: But are you making a commitment to provide your plan to the committee? That is my question. The agency made a commitment to the environment commissioner to complete all the re-evaluations by 2006. I imagine that you based that commitment on a plan. Will you provide that plan to the committee so that we can follow up properly on the proposal made by my colleague, Mr. Herron, that we should do an annual review? So will you make a commitment to provide the plan that was the basis of your statement that all re-evaluations will be completed by 2006? In passing, I very much doubt that you will be able to meet your objectives by 2006. I have said that publicly and I am repeating it here in the committee. I doubt that you can fulfil your objectives by 2006. To reassure us that you will be able to do that, are you willing to commit to providing the committee with your action plan?

[English]

    Mr. Ian Green: I've clearly indicated that our objective is to achieve full addressing of all the active ingredients by 2006-2007. I've undertaken to provide the committee with a copy of our work plan. I think I've underlined my undertaking to do that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify something about the numbers that we have been talking about the last little while? It took us some time to be able to reconcile the figures announced by the minister and our own figures. Here is the situation. The deputy minister's presentation indicates that 61 or 64 active ingredients were addressed. That does not mean fully evaluated. That number includes the 11 per cent of chemicals that were taken off the market by manufacturers themselves, the 1.5 per cent that were not completely re-evaluated, that is, the six that are mentioned, as well as the 6 per cent, some 23 chemicals, that are in the process of being re-evaluated. The process is completed when the “Approved” label is put on a product and not when the scientific evaluation of a pesticide is finished.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: From what I can understand, the agency misled us. The assessments are not really completed until the entire process has been followed. There's quite a gap between 6 and 64. I can understand that there may be some room for error, but the agency is trying to make us believe, today, that the 64 substances were subject to the entire process, which is not necessarily the case. In our opinion, as the commissioner just stated, the re-assessment is not complete until the whole process is over. Can the agency now rectify some of the facts?

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Sexsmith.

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Thank you.

    When we set out the re-evaluation program in 2001, it clearly stated how we would be doing our re-evaluation. Program one would be those areas where we could use the U.S. information. In program two we would fully evaluate. In program three we would work with the U.S. And program four was going to be for those where there were special issues for Canada or internationally.

    I think it's important to understand that without a re-evaluation program, without signalling to companies that this is going to be under re-evaluation, without working closely with companies on particular active ingredients, there wouldn't be some of the end results that have ensued. In any re-evaluation process you may end up with a product being taken off the market, phased out, no changes, some small changes, or the registrant may decide somewhere in the re-evaluation process that they are not going to support that use, all the uses, or an individual active. That does not mean that what we're trying to say is devious or hiding something. What we're saying is, with the 64 we're talking about, somewhere in that process the registrants have decided to withdraw. The number is 50 that we have. We're not trying to hide anything. That's part of our process.

    We've fully evaluated three. There were two tributyltins that came out of concerns internationally and nationally, and lindane. They were removed from the market. Three were fully evaluated and are in the process of being phased out under the same timeframes as in the U.S. These products are azinphosmethyl, phorate, and terbufos. All of these things are public and on our website, but we can certainly provide details. Eight were fully evaluated and meet modern standards, with some changes in the way they can be used. Again, they all have public documents: chlorpyrifos, coumaphos, fenthion, bensulide, tetrachlorvinphos, fenitrothion, DEET, and propetamphos.

    I understand the confusion, but we certainly don't intend to pretend that we've done something when we haven't. It's important to understand that all of these have gone through some part, if not all, of the process.

»  (1745)  

    The Chair: So is there a breakdown for these 64 substances that you can provide to the committee?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Absolutely. We'd be pleased to.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

    Ms. Gélinas, in the conclusion of the report, page 36, there's a statement that says “In our view, the Agency is not yet fulfilling this essential responsibility”, being the re-evaluation. It also states that until we strengthen the key safeguards, “the Agency can only give only limited assurance that pesticides it approves meet today's standards”. I consider these assertions in the conclusion to be very serious. I would like to know whether your office, the Office of the Auditor General or the Commissioner of the Environment, is going to take any special steps to ensure that this agency receives more than the normal cycle of attention, that we would put it on a list of some sort that indicates it requires special attention.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It may not necessarily be put on a list, but I can tell you that it has a special place in my heart. You know that, when we do an audit, we also do a follow-up on our recommendations. As regards the work of the Office of the Auditor General and my team, every year I do follow-up work on the recommendations that we've proposed, what we call our critical recommendations.

    I would also refer back to a comment I made earlier. This is not something that we can do on our own. It is said that the past heralds the future. The agency does not necessarily have a very high mark for progress achieved over the past few years. I think that we have to take this opportunity to ensure that, year after year, my office, the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and other committees, as we requested a little earlier this afternoon, ask the agency and the department to be increasingly more accountable so that we do not find ourselves noting, five or six years down the road, that progress has been slow.

    Parliamentarians could take action year after year and put pressure on the agency so that it resolves certain problems. I am not saying that we will be able to resolve the problem once and for all, because this is long-term work. We know that this will not be resolved overnight, but we need to start seeing better progress than what has been achieved over the past few years.

»  (1750)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, do you have any questions?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I have more of a comment than a question.

    I have found this to be a really excellent exercise in attempting, through the committee, to close the accountability loop, using the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment as a basis for best analysis on the process of the re-evaluations and the manner in which the committee is going to now be, as a result of the questions that have been raised, kept up to date on the action plan.

    It reminds me of the discussion we had at the species at risk legislation, if I could mention that for a moment, where we wanted to be clear on what the terms and conditions were and the manner in which the public interest was served through the submission of an action plan, and so on, to protect a species. The species we're protecting here is the public, generally, and the industry that is involved in it is extremely complex--the chemical industry.

    I'm sure members of the committee don't pretend to understand. We leave that to peer panel groups to be assured that the agency is availing itself of best practices and has a framework in place that is, again, accountable.

    I would only like to say that I think we have been involved in a process here today that is really the due diligence the public expects us to give to something as important as the whole issue of pesticides. I hope we can all be assured that what we have discovered here today is going to be a course of action that will be on a continuous improvement mode.

    I think that's the purpose of this committee and other committees, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman. I think the questioning has been excellent, the answers have been revealing, and the process will, I think, lead to some great improvements. That's what this is all about.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Lunney, then the chair, and then we'll conclude.

    Mr. James Lunney: Coming back to where I left off on the issue of the spraying in relation to West Nile virus, I didn't take a lot of comfort from the answer. I asked about a risk-benefit analysis. Does anybody do that?

    I see that Health Canada makes a generic type of evaluation, but then out comes a decision to spray something that could be harmful to children, in an abundance and in areas where they're exposed. Is it only left for the hospitals to pick it up? There's no plan for anybody to monitor it. There's no warning for where this is used or whether it should be used in areas around children, and so on.

    My question concerns children's developing nervous systems and the effect of some of these things on children in areas where they are used. What about the cost-benefit analysis? Who should be doing it?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: If the question is directed at me, I apologize for not being clear.

    Before any of these products can be used, they undergo a rigorous scientific assessment that includes children, and that would of course include these products that are being used or are available for use to the provinces. It is the province's decision. I do understand. I have a little familiarity in how provinces operate, since I used to be a provincial regulator. Normally with programs of this type there is a lot of communication both within the municipality and the areas of the province that are affected.

    Normally these types of programs--not wanting to speak for provinces but talking with some familiarity--are only carried out when there's a level of understanding, agreement, and commitment by the citizens.

    I would like to pick up on your point about monitoring. I guess we would agree with you on the issue of monitoring, not monitoring specifically to West Nile virus, but monitoring in general, and how useful that would be. We have a committee set up with the five natural resource departments to coordinate their work in that area, and there may be some useful information coming out of that.

    On your question on risk-benefit, we do a risk analysis. We do a risk assessment. We do not do a risk-benefit analysis. That is not something we do. The provinces and municipalities that are making those decisions would have to make those kinds of judgments.

»  (1755)  

    Mr. James Lunney: Perhaps if you're the experts in this area of the toxicity of these things and their use...when there is a sudden demand and a sudden increase in the use and where they're applied, there ought to be some communication between departments. Maybe somebody ought to be flagging that, and there maybe should be some response to that. But I have to go another way because I'm short on time here.

    Again, when it's mentioned that just small quantities can be quite deadly to animals, we wonder what the effect is on children. I am concerned about the effect on our children and grandchildren.

    But coming back in another direction now, how does cost recovery apply to this? You mentioned that there's an increase in funding. You've gone from $32 million to some $46 million in funding to help meet the need of expediting the evaluations. Where's the money coming from, and how much of this money actually comes from cost recovery?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Through our cost-recovery regulation, $8 million of our budget is recovered, and the balance is public money.

    Mr. James Lunney: That includes the increase to $46 million--

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That's right.

    Mr. James Lunney: So only $8 million is expected to come from that?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That's right. The reason for that is because the cost-recovery regulation is specifically structured, and there would have to be a change in regulation to change that. But that's about what we've gotten on average over the last four or five years.

    Mr. James Lunney: Maybe there's one more question here. It's another direction, but it's on my mind. Perhaps there are people who have been on this environment committee for many years who have far more information than I do on this, but I'm concerned about another aspect of the accumulation in the environment of pesticides and herbicides that are highly volatile: they end up in the high snowpacks; they precipitate out in the snowfall.

    That may not be so much directed to Health Canada as it is to our ecosystem, where these things are accumulating and having a toxic effect in amphibians, in fish, in predators and raptors, and so on, that eat these critters. So I guess the question may be to the commissioner: did you come across any...? I guess you were specifically looking at the issues with Health Canada and their evaluation. Perhaps this question is not best directed to you at this time.

    Would either of you care to comment on that?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, I have a comment.

    We implemented the toxic substances management policy in 1999, and that really sets out and adopts the government policy dealing with toxic persistent biocumulative things, and in every product we evaluate we consider that issue. The bottom line is that we really aren't registering those kinds of products any more.

    Mr. James Lunney: They're still recycling, aren't they?

    Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We still have in the environment some of the very old ones that are very, very persistent. That's absolutely true.

    The Chair: Thank you for your contribution, Mr. Lunney.

    Let me conclude by saying that we had, as Mr. Tonks already indicated, a very wide exchange this afternoon and we have received a number of answers that have been helpful. But there are several areas where the members of this committee would need reassurance from the agency, and I will outline them very briefly.

    The first one has to do with whether funding for research and evaluation is adequate. The next has to do with the observation by the commissioner that the agency can give only limited assurance that pesticides it approves meet today's standards--paragraph 1.130 on page 36. Third is the observation that the agency has a responsibility to ensure that the judgments on which pesticides can be used are up to date and that the agency is not yet fulfilling this essential responsibility--paragraph 1.131. On new pesticides there is the observation that the agency is not meeting its own targets for this and other types of pesticides--paragraph 1.132. And finally, on the evaluation of pesticides, paragraph 1.133, we see that a crucial check to ensure that pesticides are used safely is not working as it should. We would like very much to receive some comments that maybe are the result of reflection by the agency internally in the next two weeks, so that we can then study the text of those reflections and see where we take it from there and what kind of subsequent discussion may be required.

    In the meantime, Mr. Herron has made a suggestion of yearly reports, which we are glad has been accepted as a formal regular procedure for this committee and future committees. I'm sure the clerk will have the institutional memory required to ensure that this is not forgotten.

    We look forward to perhaps a continuation of this dialogue, triangular if you like, between the committee, the agency, and the commissioner, or bilaterally between the agency and the commissioner, because we think it is very fruitful and somewhat productive, although it could be more productive--only time, perhaps, can tell.

    It's six o'clock, and I thank the witnesses here today for their appearance and my colleagues for their very valuable information.

    We're adjourned.