HESA Committee Report

Supplementary Opinion of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria; Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches-East York; Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi-Témiscamingue

The New Democrat Members of the Standing Committee on Health are concerned that the final report on ‘The Statutory Review of the Pest Control Products Act’, does not reflect the depth of the concerns and recommendations shared by witnesses who testified before the Committee.

Under section 80.1 of the Pest Control Products Act (" the Act" or "the PCPA"), a statutory review of the administration of the Act must be undertaken every seven years. The Act was last amended in June 2006, and previous to that in 2002, before which it had not been substantially amended for some 35 years. Accordingly, to discharge our responsibility to the Canadian public, we do not believe that the 7 hours dedicated to the review is sufficient. We wished to hear more witnesses from provincial officials, from the workers who apply pesticides, and from those concerned with urban infestation of bedbugs.

More specifically, we believe that the failure to hear from provincial officials is a particularly serious deficiency. In general terms the PCPA provides authority for the licensing of those past control products available for sale and application in Canada, but the application of pesticides is primarily a matter of provincial responsibility. Although we asked for provincial officials to be invited, this did not occur. Other witnesses could have substantially enhanced our understanding of this complex area of regulation and better enabled us to discharge our statutory obligation to provide a comprehensive review of this legislation.

Generally speaking, we believe that the majority report is long on generalities in its calls for reviews to be undertaken by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (the "PMRA") and Health Canada but short on specific actions and specific timetables for action. Moreover, the self-congratulatory tone in places seems inconsistent with some of the disturbing testimony presented to the Committee.

Conditional Registrations

We do not believe that the recommendations in the primary report go far enough to address concerns raised about conditional registration of pesticide ingredients. The Committee heard that conditional registrations are being granted for up to three years.

The PMRA's process for the approval of a class of pesticides containing neonicotinoids ("neonics") perhaps best illustrates this concern. Neonics can dramatically affect bee and pollinator populations. The Committee heard evidence that some 35 of the 88 pest control products conditionally registered as of 2014 contained neonics. Moreover, many of these products were conditionally registered on the condition that the registrants provided data on toxicity impacts on bees. Yet these data gaps were not always filled. Some products have been conditionally registered since 2003 with chronic toxicity studies still outstanding. In one case, conditional registrations were extended three times. Despite this deficiency, the Agency has typically extended the conditional registration.

We note that on March 23, the Ontario Government released draft neonic regulations.  Virtually all of the nearly 50,000 comments received during the public consultation period are in favor of the Ontario government restricting the use and sale of neonic-treated seeds. Similarly, many European countries have already acted to protect bees and other important pollinators by restricting neonics.

We recommend that the PCPA be amended to cancel registration for noncompliance after a single extension is granted, with permission to reapply in a narrow set of circumstances, to be defined in the Regulations.

Pesticide Resistance Management

We note that in 1999 the PMRA introduced a voluntary pesticide resistance-management labelling initiative for certain pesticides. It was updated in 2013. Pesticide resistance has become a significant issue in Canada and across the world.

We recommend that producers and users of pesticides be required to advise the PMRA of any resistance to particular pesticides that is encountered.

We further recommend that the PMRA establish a comprehensive plan to manage pesticide resistance, to be undertaken in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Workplace Exposures

The Committee heard that farm workers are particularly vulnerable to workplace exposure of pest control products applied in combination with non-workplace exposures.

We recommend that the PMRA be required to consider the workplace exposures of pest control products in combination with non-workplace exposures.

We further recommend that the Regulations under the PCPA be amended to require the PMRA report to the public on the quantity of each pesticide sold in each province, as is done routinely in several US states, to help inform and protect farm workers and other vulnerable communities.

Bedbug Infestations

While the Report refers to the bedbug issue, it makes no recommendations. It makes reference to the briefs indicating the need for more research and continued attention but does not consider whether there is any role for the PMRA in addressing this menace.  In the face of a widespread social and health issue such as this, we believe that the agency should have a proactive role. Such a rule is consistent with the text of the Preamble to the Act.

We recommend that the PMRA, in conjunction with Health Canada, develop a strategy to encourage the development and use of alternative, non-toxic, ecological pest control approaches, strategies and products to address the bedbug issue.

We further recommend that the PMRA work with relevant stakeholders, including manufacturers, to encourage research on the development of new products and replacement strategies to safely control bed bugs. Particular attention must be given to the potential effects of such products and strategies upon vulnerable populations such as infants and the elderly, and the PRMA should expedite the review of any applications received.

Transparency

The Committee heard evidence that the public does not have adequate access to documents that the Agency uses to evaluate pesticides. So-called "data evaluation records" are not always provided, with no justification offered. The Committee heard that access is given too late in the process, sometimes six weeks after a decision is made. Still others told us that it is impossible to know what independent scientific literature the Agency may have examined in particular registration decisions.

We recommend, that subject only to the legitimate need to protect confidential business information, the Agency must consult with the public before decisions are made and the public be given complete access to a record of all material that the Agency has examined in a particular registration decision.

We further recommend that section 42(6) of the Act be amended to specify that within 30 days of receipt of registration that information be made available to the public in the Register in as convenient a manner as practicable.

We further recommend that sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Pest Control Product Regulations pertaining to conditional registration be amended to enhance public consultation and improve transparency.

We further recommend that the PCPA be amended to establish a citizen review committee consisting of interested representatives of the public and relevant experts to review decisions, policies and practices of the PMRA and make recommendations to the Minister when warranted.

Electronic Public Registry

Under section 42(7) of the Act, an Electronic Public Registry must be established. The Committee heard testimony that the Agency is not meeting the requirements of the Act, and that certain information, particularly relating to conditionally registered pesticides, is unavailable, despite the fact that the same information is often publicly accessible in the United States. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has a more robust electronic registry that can serve as a model.

We recommend that s. 42 (7) of the Act be amended to require the PMRA to audit the accessibility and completeness of its electronic public registry with the goal of harmonization with the US EPA registry.