HESA Committee Report

Supplementary Report from the Liberal Party of Canada on
The Statutory Review of the Pest Control Products Act.

Submitted by Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry, P.C., M.P., Federal Liberal Health Critic

On 9 December 2014, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (Committee) adopted the following motion:

That the Committee undertake a statutory review of the Pest Control Products Act as required under section 80.1 of the Act; that its first meeting in 2015 include a presentation by departmental officials; that not more than two further full meetings be dedicated to this purpose, and that the Committee report its findings to the House of Commons.

The Committee heard from a wide-range of witnesses from departmental officials, industry, scientific experts and environmental groups in its review. We heard contradictory testimony regarding the transparency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and its effectiveness in enforcing the PCPA. The Liberal Party of Canada believed it was necessary to add a supplementary report to ensure recommendations that were not in the Committee’s report were reflected here.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:

Concerns were raised with respect to the application of the precautionary principle in reviewing new pesticide applications. As noted by Maggie MacDonald of Environmental Defence Canada, “a lack of evidence of risk is not the same thing as evidence of no risk.” The onus must be on the manufacturer to prove there are no health risks. As noted by Lara Tessaro of Ecojustice Canada the European Union achieves this balance. If proof of the product’s safety is not supplied, then it will not be registered there.

Recommendation 1: The precautionary principle must be applied to any application for a new pesticide registration, requiring the manufacturer to provide the scientific evidence proving there are no unacceptable risks to public health and/or the environment.

Corey Loessin of Pulse Canada noted that technology is constantly changing and certain pesticides are no longer simply applied by spraying, but to decrease airborne risk, some new pesticides are injected directly into the soil. This could give rise to concerns about whether these pesticides could seep into ground water supply and affect animal and human health.

Recommendation 2: PMRA conduct regular surveillance of ground water quality and run-off where any pesticide is being deposited directly in the ground and monitor safety for animal and human consumption.

CONDITIONAL REGISTRATION:

Witnesses explained there were misuses of the conditional registration of pesticides process. The PMRA must be able to conduct its risk assessment of a pesticide in order to issue a registration. However the PMRA may authorize a conditional registration if they are able to conduct the full assessment, but require more data from the manufacturer within an allotted time.

Maggie MacDonald of Environmental Defence Canada noted that conditional registrations are often renewed even after conditions originally applied are not met within the allotted time. This was particularly concerning regarding the conditional registrations of neonicotinoids which has been linked to bee deaths.

The United States publicly tracks conditional registrations online and witnesses suggested the PCPA be amended to establish an electronic public registry of conditional registrations of pesticides in Canada.

In a brief provided to the Committee the Ontario Beekeeper’s Association expressed concerns about conditional registration of neonicotinoids and their necessity. They explained that the PMRA should consider the need of any new pesticide as a condition for its registration. If it is not needed, or could not replace or improve on a previously used pesticide, then it should not be approved.

Recommendation 3: The PMRA include evidence on the need and safety of any new pesticide as a condition in the approval process and that this evidence is based on sound, independent research, without the bias of conflict of interest.

Recommendation 4: S. 42 of the PCPA be amended to require that the electronic public registry include the same information about conditionally registered pesticides that is publicly accessible in the United States.

The Committee’s report discusses the protection of farm workers, in particular the exposure to pesticides that are only conditionally registered and in need of re-evaluation. Farm workers’ exposure to pesticides is different than the average consumer. They are exposed to these products for sustained periods of time. Further concerns were raised regarding compliance with label conditions, particularly for those farm workers that are temporary foreign workers and may not speak English or French.

Recommendation 5: PMRA ensure farmers have full knowledge of proper use of pesticides.

Recommendation 6: PMRA take into account evidence of short-term and long-term sustained and aggregate exposure of farm workers to pesticides.

Recommendation 7: PMRA require studies examining cumulative exposure of pesticides, particularly in children to monitor the aggregate toxicity of chlorophenal herbicides

COMMUNICATION, CONSULTATION AND TRANSPARENCY:

A number of witnesses expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the approvals of new pesticides and conditional registrations. It was noted by the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association that Health Canada could do a better job of communicating with Canadians about the regulatory process.

John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada Foundation and Lara Tessario of Ecojustice Canada expressed concerns regarding public consultations and public access to scientific data used for registrations and conditional registrations. Lara Tessario explained that sections 14, 15, and 16 of the pest control products regulations “exempt most conditional registrations and most amendments to conditional registrations from three things: public notice and consultation, the right of the public to file any objection, and certain transparency obligations.” John Bennett further explained that PMRA consultations come after decisions have already been made and the public does not have access to scientific data, preventing people from commenting effectively.

Recommendation 8:  PMRA review the accessibility of documents, including scientific evidence, it uses to register pest control products with a view to ensuring that Canadians are able to provide meaningful and informed input into the decision-making process.

Recommendation 9: Sections 14 through 16 of The Pest Control Products Regulations be repealed.

Recommendation 10: PCPA be amended to establish a citizen review committee with experts to review PMRA decisions, policies, and practices to advise the Minister.

HARMONIZATION OF MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS (MRLs):

The Committee heard about the importance of harmonization of MRLs, which is the maximum amount of pesticide residues that can legally be allowed to be found on a food commodity. By harmonizing MRLs we can ensure that Canadian agricultural products can be safely exported. When harmonizing MRLs Health Canada must ensure that we do not lower the threshold that may exist in other jurisdictions. This must also be done with regard to international regulations of toxic substances in pesticides.

Recommendation 11: PMRA conduct regular reviews of international regulations of toxic substances in pesticides to ensure Canada’s regulations of these substances is not substandard to other jurisdictions.

CONCLUSION:

While the Committee heard evidence that the PCPA was working well concerns were raised in a number of areas including the use of the precautionary principle in approving new pesticides or authorizing conditional registrations; public consultation and transparency; assessing risks of new technology in pesticides; health impacts on farm workers; and citizen review.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes the PCPA can be improved by implementing these recommendations, in addition to those recommendations in the Committee’s report.