AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

1530

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.))

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

The Chair

1535

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Acting Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

1540

1545

1550

1555

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke (Minor Use Advisor, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

1600

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1605

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC)

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1610

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1615

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

1620

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Hon. Mark Eyking

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Hon. Mark Eyking

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Hon. Mark Eyking

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1625

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

1630

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1635

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1640

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1645

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1650

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

1655

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1700

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

1705

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 017

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a review of the activities of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I have a point of order before we get going.

I don't have the documentation in front of me, but we had an in camera meeting, as you'll recall, a couple of weeks ago on the packers and how we were going to deal with them. As a member of the committee, I was a little dismayed to read the next day about everything we had decided and that the matter was attributed to a member of this committee.

I guess I'm looking for clarification from you as to what constitutes an in camera meeting and how all of us should conduct ourselves. If it's not going to be obeyed, then it's open house.

The Chair: That's a fair question, Mr. Proctor.

From my perspective, an in camera meeting is in camera and is not to go outside the walls of this room in those areas of a personal nature or where there are pecuniary or monetary interests. Matters we take a position on that are known outside and would go on the website are free to be talked about, provided they are factual and to the point. But certain matters of a personal nature are not expected to go outside this room.

Does that make it clear?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Given that, are there repercussions for this individual from this committee, or now that have we raised the matter, is that the end of it?

The Chair: You can raise the matter, but I'm not sure what the consequences are. This is happening on all sides of the House. Almost every week something happens that probably shouldn't.

Are you alluding to any statements by the chair?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No, none at all.

The Chair: Okay. Because I'm very sensitive to those kinds of issues. I've always felt that this committee was very diligent and very prudent about the kinds of comments that have gone outside this room. They've always been kept within these walls, and I appreciate that. That's why this committee has been so successful.

I appreciate that you've asked me that question, but I don't know whether I've shed any light on it.

I see there's another point.

Mr. Easter.

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I think Dick raises a fairly valid concern. Yes, it does happen. It has become all too common. I think it's going to continue to happen until somebody's called before the bar as violating all of our parliamentary privileges. An in camera meeting is an in camera meeting. If one individual is going to get away with violating that confidence, so to speak, then we all might as well.

I think there should be serious repercussions, because in an in camera meeting we trust in people's honesty that the procedure will stay in camera. If it does not and there is evidence, I believe they should be charged and asked to go before the bar by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Thank you for raising that, but we'll deal with that at an appropriate time in camera, when we can be a little more frank than in a public meeting. But I think it's an appropriate issue to be raised.

Continuing with the matter at hand today, I want to welcome our guests.

Mr. Duplain.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I didn't understand. What is it exactly that we are discussing?

[English]

The Chair: Just give me one moment.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: It's simply that I didn't understand what we were discussing. I would have liked to understand the situation to which Mr. Proctor was referring.

[English]

The Chair: There was a matter that became public business. There was a press release, but not on a matter pertaining to the beef industry. I think it would be best if we discussed that in camera at some time when we can lay all the cards on the table and talk more appropriately.

On the matter of travelling to Abbotsford next week, as the chair I had to make a decision on Monday, given a number of circumstances that are going to prevent me from travelling next week. Also, another member of the committee who was to travel cannot travel. Given the matter before the House and this committee on beef, I need to be in Ottawa next Monday; therefore we have decided that for the time being we'll basically put this matter on hold.

I did not attend the budget meeting with the committee two days ago because I didn't have a reason to do so, knowing we weren't going to be travelling. That doesn't mean I shouldn't go and won't go, but we will make that decision perhaps at a later time. So that is the reason we're not travelling. We need to have this decision known by the committee today, because certain members have to be notified of our not going, because of travel plans and because certain people are travelling.

We will move to our guests today. As of last October 30, I believe, a member from the government side requested that the PMRA appear on a regular basis, and I believe six months was the time. We're within two days of six months, so we have asked you to come back. Wendy Sexsmith and Imme Gerke from PMRA are no strangers to this committee. They have come back in large part to give us a progress report, as was raised at the last meeting. The floor is yours.

Wendy, will you be speaking first? I'll refer to you by your first names today. It will probably be a little quicker and a little more personal.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Acting Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here today to follow up on and respond to your requests from the last meeting and of course to respond to any questions.

[Translation]

Before I address your requests, however, I would like to comment on recent concerns in the media regarding the safety of pesticides. I would like to reiterate that Health Canada's first priority respecting pesticides is the protection of health and the environment.

[English]

On health protection, before a pesticide is registered in Canada, detailed studies must be conducted by the applicants or the companies to assess potential long-term adverse effects as well as potential acute and short-term effects.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency scientists carry out rigorous scientific assessments of these studies to ensure that pesticides, when used according to the label, do not pose health risks to Canadians. Reviews of health effects of pesticides performed by the PMRA scientists include studies on the unique exposures of children and the potential effects of pesticide exposure on the pregnant mother, the fetus, and the young child.

The PMRA has adopted stringent standards in providing additional protection for Canadian children potentially exposed to pesticides. Pesticides are only registered if there's a wide enough margin of safety between what people, including children, are exposed to and the highest dose that causes no effect, according to scientific research.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

PMRA uses standards, methods and processes that are protective of public and environmental safety and are comparable to those used in the U.S. and other OECD countries. I know a sound scientific process that supports the safety of the food supply and agricultural workers and their families is important to agriculture.

[English]

Now let me turn to PMRA's progress. In response to your questions last October regarding numbers of new activeingredients, temporary registrations, emergency registrations, minor-useregistrations, and re-evaluations, this information has been sent to the committee.

[Translation]

I will report briefly on these items as well as highlight progress related to agricultural pesticides that I hope will be of interest to the committee.

[English]

In 2003-04, 19 new pesticide active ingredients with their associated end-useproducts--which is a different number--were registered. Of those, nine were reduced risk and five were a result of joint reviews or work shares with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Out of those, 11 of the 19 are relevant to agriculture.

[Translation]

This compares favourably to the number of new actives registered in the US in 2002, for example, 12 conventional chemical active ingredients.

[English]

Of the new pesticides mentioned earlier, 15 received temporary registration.Temporary registrations are granted when risks are considered acceptable, that is, when the product meets current health and environmental safety standards and isefficacious, but only when confirmatory or conditional data are required.

Temporary or conditional registrations are also issued by pesticide regulators in thesame way in the U.S., Europe, and other countries. However, the overall percentage of fullregistrations is 97%, indicating that while temporary registrations are granted, theyremain a small percentage of the overall number of registrations over time.

Decisions on new active ingredients and their associated products were reachedwithin our performance timelines 91% of the time, up from last fiscal year. I recognize that there have been some questions raised about the way in which wereport against performance standards. Staff met recently with the economicstakeholders to jointly consider how to better communicate thisinformation. For example, using ranges of completion times or standarddeviations has been suggested.

Using this logic on joint reviews, while the overall performance standards for all jointreviews completed since 1997 were met only 69% of the time, the timelines weremissed within a range of one to 52 days. One of the concerns expressed by somehas been that Canada slows down the review process in joint reviews.

[Translation]

The information that I just provided does not support that. This is important because many joint reviews involve agricultural pesticides that bring both grains and oilseed uses as well as horticultural uses to Canada.

[English]

For example, recent joint reviews with the U.S. have registered uses ranging fromfruiting and bulb vegetables to lettuce, canola, potatoes, and seed treatments, andare examples of these products being provided to both sides of the border at the same time.

With respect to emergency registrations, the process is in place in Canada to allowfor registration of a product under emergency conditions where there is noalternative.

[Translation]

Since risks to health and the environment must be acceptable in order to register a pesticide, only products with registration status in Canada can be considered, because the large toxicology data base in particular has already been reviewed.

¹ (1545)

[English]

In the very short time that normally exists for emergency registrations to be completed, it would not be possible to review a complete database. Emergency use applications are submitted by government agencies with the knowledge of provincial regulatory agencies. Although some repeat emergency applications are necessary, they are not intended to serve as a regulatory option for ongoing pest problems.

There were 25 emergency registrations granted within the fiscal year that I'm speaking about--2003-04--and 12 of these were repeat applications. Most of these repeats now have submissions for registration under review. Typically, the users and sponsoring agencies are actively working toward a long-term solution, including the generation of data required to support a registration, which can often take more than a year to complete.

An area where the horticultural sector has been critical of government for many years is in regard to the lack of availability of pesticides for minor crops that they grow. The Canadian government recognized the problems of access by Canadian growers to new reduced-risk products for minor use, and in May 2002 it announced a joint initiative, including new funding, by Agriculture and Health Canada's PMRA to give Canadian producers better access to minor-use and reduced-risk pesticides. I believe this will have significant and positive effects on the existing Canadian minor-use program, because now there will be a specific program to develop the data required to support new minor uses and to make high-quality submissions. The PMRA and AAFC have been working closely together to develop a program that will be efficient with regard to the development of submissions and registration decision-making.

In addition, the PMRA and the U.S. EPA are working closely with Ag Canada and the U.S. minor-use program and growers to encourage the joint submission of data on minor-use products, and the U.S. EPA and PMRA are collaborating on the joint review of the data. There are currently four pilot submissions to try out this approach. This is a way to extend the joint review concept to minor uses so that those uses become available to growers on both sides of the border at the same time. It is also a way for government to actually do joint reviews, which it encourages others to do.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to minor crops, in 2003-04 a total of 302 new minor crop uses have been registered. Of these,192 uses were specifically for food crops, while 110 were registered for non-food crops, crops such as ornamentals and flowers. Information on minor crop uses is published every six months, and we've seen a substantial increase over the 50 minor uses per year that were granted on average prior to 2002. The use of a crop-grouping approach has also increased the number of registrations, and we are working with the U.S. and other OECD countries to increase the ability to use crop groupings broadly.

[Translation]

With respect to re-evaluation, an important program to ensure that existing pesticides meet modern safety standards, we have made progress, in large measure by using US reviews.

[English]

In November 2003 a work plan for the timeframe of April 2003 to June 2004 was published. In addition, a commitment was made to complete 40% of the re-evaluations of pesticides registered prior to 1995. As of March 2004, 32%--or 130--of the total target have now been completed, and the agency is on track to meeting its 40% target for June of this year. This means that decisions have been made or proposed and documents are out, in translation, or in the publication process and will be out shortly. Most decisions are harmonized with the U.S. For example, if the product is to be phased out, the timelines are similar, if at all possible. A work plan for 2004-05 will be published in June as well as a summary document with the re-evaluation results of this past year.

In addition, in an effort to improve communication on re-evaluation and in recognition of the importance of ensuring that alternatives are available, a meeting is being convened on May 19, 2004, to discuss with stakeholders how we can work together more efficiently on re-evaluation, transition, and ensuring access to alternatives.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

The PMRA has recognized the need to encourage registration of new reduced-risk pesticides and acted upon a government commitment to pursue harmonization as one of the key means of achieving efficiencies and facilitating access to the new technologies at the same time as our US counterparts.

[English]

These were the primary reasons that Canada, the U.S., and Mexico focused first on implementing programs that allow for priority review for reduced-risk products. Significant progress has been made in harmonizing registration activities and establishing programs, many of which give priority review to reduced-risk pesticides.

Now more than 50% of new products submitted to Canada are reviewed jointly or through work share with the U.S., and a large number of major and minor uses have been registered. In Canada, about 74% of the reduced-risk active ingredients registered or pending registration in the U.S. are now registered or pending in Canada.

Under many of these programs, while we do not accept the decisions made in the U.S. or other countries, we accept the results of their reviews; therefore, we are able to be more efficient with regard to making a decision. There is no OECD country that accepts the decision of another country, but we are all striving to be able to use the results of other countries' work to make decisions more efficiently.

One of the key barriers to this is the need to obtain permission from registrants. Currently in Canada registrant permission is required in order to share a study evaluation. Under the new Pest Control Products Act this will not be necessary once the product is registered in Canada, but it will continue to be necessary prior to registration and therefore will continue to be a barrier to countries working together.

The Pest Control Products Act requires a determination of acceptability of risks and the value of a product before registering it. That responsibility cannot be met simply by adopting decisions of other countries.

Although progress on the harmonization front in agriculture has been steady, our work is not finished. In the agricultural area, most of the tools needed to work together are harmonized: data requirements, guidelines, formats, electronic tools. We are now at the stage of harmonizing risk-assessment approaches. We have made progress, but we have more work to do.

The PMRA recognizes that the progress has been possible only with the cooperation of registrants who send their submissions to both countries at the same time for review and a willingness on the part of all parties involved to work toward maintaining a joint, seamless registration process.

While we work to enhance this process, we're also making progress toward bringing the new act into force. We have published regulations on the reporting of sales data in part I of the Canada Gazette, a regulation of interest related to the commission on environmental sustainability report, and we are working on other key regulations important for the new act to come into force.

I recognize that one of the areas for which we are criticized is communication. We are working diligently to implement the transparency provisions of the new act and are developing a public registry to allow access to evaluation reports on registered pesticides and to facilitate the ease and timing of the public's access to such documents.

While risk-assessment documents for all new pesticides are currently published on our website as a matter of policy, under the new act these documents as well as the evaluation reports will be available. These provisions will allow the sharing of reviews with provincial and international regulators and enhance the process for international work sharing of pesticides post-registration.

On the issue of communication, in general or specifically, any suggestions the committee might have to improve communication would be welcome.

The PMRA provides information on plans, priorities, and spending as part of Health Canada's report on plans and priorities and the departmental performance report. Performance information and information about resources is reported to PMRA's economic management advisory committee and posted on the website.

In addition, the five-year progress report is in the final preparation stages, and work has already begun on our 2003-04 annual report. Once the new act has come into force we intend to be ready to provide the annual report to Parliament. I would be pleased to provide the five-year progress report to the committee when it is published.

Just to touch briefly on some other issues raised in the commissioner's report, an evaluation of the agency's cost-recovery program covering the years 1997-98 to 2001-02 is currently underway. An evaluation steering committee representing all stakeholders approved the scope of that evaluation last year. The consultant's report is expected in May of this year.

¹ (1555)

With respect to staff, in order to meet our objectives and ensure that regulatory commitments are met, the agency implemented an extensive in-house orientation program to train new staff and launched a development program for biologists and chemists in May of last year to facilitate training and development. This was the first program of its kind for scientists in the federal government, and we believe these measures have helped attract and retain high-calibre talent.

As of January 2004, for example, agency attrition was calculated to be at an all-time low of 6%, as compared to an average of 10% in Health Canada. I'm pleased to say that the solid work of this dedicated staff is directly responsible for our progress in making safe and effective products available for use.

Progress has been made, but there is more to do. We will continue to work with the U.S. to resolve differences and work to increase our ability to work-share internationally.

With our recent progress in mind, we are committed to harmonization and to encouraging stakeholder participation at all levels. PMRA is committed to working with growers and other stakeholders to continue to build harmonized approaches so that as much as is possible joint reviews between the U.S. and Canada and work-sharing broadly with other countries is increased, bringing new and reduced-risk products into the hands of growers more quickly, in an efficient manner, while ensuring health and environmental protection and a safe and abundant food supply for all Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, I will now ask that Dr. Gerke, PMRA's minor-use adviser, provide you with an update.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Gerke, I trust you might keep it rather brief. We're really eating into our question time, but we also want the information, so it's a balancing act. So if you could help us do that, I'd appreciate that.

Dr. Imme Gerke (Minor Use Advisor, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): I think it's brief.

The Chair: I don't believe we have a circulated copy of Ms. Gerke's remarks.

Dr. Imme Gerke: No, I don't have it here. We'll provide it.

The Chair: Okay.

Dr. Imme Gerke: As the minor-use adviser or ombudsperson, it is my responsibility to liaise between the growers and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and between PMRA, the U.S. EPA, and the United States Department of Agriculture's Inter-Regional Project 4, or IR-4.

Another two very important stakeholder groups have turned out to be the pesticide industry in all its forms, multinational companies, and the small and medium-sized companies in Canada and in the U.S., and the whole food industry, such as processors, packers, brokers, and so on. The reason for these extensions is the fact that the food market, and with it the use of pesticides, has become a global issue.

[Translation]

To reach the highest level of efficiency of this position, it is important for all stakeholder groups to know that I work as an advisor to growers, the food industry, the pesticide industry, scientists and the different levels of government in Canada and the US, that I advise stakeholders of each others' needs and constraints, and that I recommend to each group different possibilities for moving their issues ahead. When it is necessary and appropriate, I become personally involved.

[English]

The most important messages I need to pass on are that I do not make decisions for others, that I continue to search for solutions until I have found one that is acceptable, and that I treat all contacts confidentially. In all activities, my basic approach is that growers must be given all information they need to have, or want to have, to be able to make best-informed decisions.

º (1600)

[Translation]

During the past winter, I again visited the growers in their provinces to inform them of the advances in the Minor Use System, of how to enter their pest problems into this system, and of how to follow up on the progress made in terms of developing solutions to these problems.

[English]

The minor-use system I presented to the growers this year is based on the close link between the growers and their provincial minor-use coordinator, the PMUC.

Only the PMUC can add the pesticide needs to the national need list, or take them off. The list is maintained by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and is used by growers and their PMUCs to identify pest problems and products and other crops, provinces, and countries, and to choose priorities, which then become projects for Agriculture Canada. As of this year, the national need list is already over 2,500 projects long.

All stakeholder groups in Canada and the U.S have expressed their wish to work more closely together to save money and time on both sides of the border. This intense collaboration requires clarity and transparency among all stakeholders.

I have gathered the issues and requests from growers, food industry registrants, scientists, and the Canadian and U.S governments and have passed these on to the PMRA and the AAFC. The tools that stakeholders need to follow up on progress, to clarify perceived conflicts of interest, and to communication with each other, are now being installed on the websites of both departments.

[Translation]

To support Canadian and US scientists and registration specialists in generating data and preparing data packages for review, PMRA has made its 2002 registration course available in video format. Several study directors and grower associations have already made use of these videos and others have asked for this material.

[English]

Did things evolve overnight? Definitely not. It took a lot of effort and goodwill on all sides to get to the point that the system has reached now.

The reasons things have not moved even faster than they did are the enormous numbers of people involved, the fact that growing seasons are separated by winter seasons, and the fact that change always makes things a little harder before they get better.

[Translation]

The system is almost complete, and stakeholders have begun using it quite successfully. The goal is now to eliminate the last hurdles and to instruct all stakeholders in the use of the system.

[English]

Thank you for your interest.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we move to our questioning of our witnesses.

Mr. Borotsik, you're on for seven minutes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Thank you, I'm going to share it with my colleague, Mr. Epp.

I have one line of questioning particularly.

In your preamble, Ms. Sexsmith, you talked about the recent media report. I assume you're referring to the Ontario College of Family Physicians and their 170-page report identifying pesticides with certain difficulties. I don't agree with that, and I know it was a review of written studies only.

What's the strategy of PMRA? I accept the fact that the PMRA and Canadian pesticides are safe; we believe in science, we believe it in GM, and we believe it in pesticides that are there in the marketplace. To have a credible organization like the Ontario College of Family Physicians out there suggesting that's not the case brings you and your organization into suspicion.

What's your strategy to try to get the message out that what's there in the marketplace or on the shelves is in fact safe for Canadian consumers?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I will answer that with a couple of points.

One approach was to make sure, when I appeared today, to emphasize the fact that we do have a rigorous scientific review process. We've also communicated with our provincial and regional colleagues on this issue and made sure they were aware of the facts. In addition, we've prepared a series of questions and answers and put that on our website and alerted all of our stakeholders.

So those are three key steps we have made.

We continue, and will of course continue in the future, to try to get our message out about how pesticides are regulated.

So that would be my short answer to your question.

º (1605)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You've also said in your presentation that one of your shortcomings--and there may be others, and I'm not going to deal with them--was communications. I have to say, based on your response to that question, your communications are still somewhat suspect. It is very important that Canadians recognize that we do have an organization called PMRA and that it does stand behind all of the pesticides sitting there in the marketplace at the present time. You've done your science.

There are other ways of doing it. The Health Minister, for example, could get out in front. Have you asked him to? Have you requested others to be more vocal about this particular issue? This is just the thin edge of the wedge. If this continues to grow, I should tell you that there's going to be an activist movement to make sure we ban all of these pesticides.

Now I'm concerned not only for agriculture, but also, quite simply, about the fact that your organization is going to be tarred with the wrong brush. I think you do a fairly reasonable job in making sure the science is safe. Tell people that. How are you going to do it? Telling us isn't going to do the job. We already believe you. How are you going to tell the rest of Canada?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, I accept that you're not the only ones who need to understand this. We will continue to make efforts in the area of communication. As I said in my opening remarks, this is an area where we do have a weakness. I guess my other comment would be, the Minister in the House actually did answer a question on this issue yesterday. We will certainly stand behind our process with regard to the evaluation of new and old--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Rather than a question--if I may suggest something--could you have any influence with the minister to do a ministerial statement on this issue? This is a fairly serious topic. Could you do that?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We can take that back and have that discussion. We have been in discussions with the minister's office on this.

Thank you.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're welcome.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleague for sharing his time. I don't know if you picked up on it, but when you talked about genetic modification you made a gesture toward me. I don't know what the meaning is of that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're not GM, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: Anyway, getting on with this, I really appreciate your report to our committee today, and I have a few really quick, factual questions. I would like to know roughly how many people you have on your staff and how many have doctorates and masters degrees and so on, if you know those numbers.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We have about 506 people on staff. I actually don't have the breakdown of the scientists, but I can get that for you. I just don't happen to have it with me today. About 70% of the 506 are scientists, and there's a breakdown of their academic credentials that I can certainly provide to you.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's not urgent. It's just a matter of curiosity.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We're very much a science organization.

Mr. Ken Epp: The question I do have for you, though, is whether in your opinion you're getting adequate funding to hire and keep the best. You mentioned your very low attrition rate. Is that because you're overpaying them or because they are so very pleased to work in your agency?

Related to this, I would also like to know whether or not you have frequent or infrequent requests from these scientists for additional equipment and lab material and so on that they need in order to do their work. In other words, my big question is, are you adequately funded to do a good job?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We've received resources in the last few years related to putting the regulations and activities in the new act in place as well as for minor use. I guess one can always say resources are a challenge.

I don't think we're overpaying our scientists. I hope they think they're adequately paid. I do not think they're staying because they're overpaid. I think I would hazard to say that they stay because they like the work; they find it challenging.

On the issue of equipment, one of the things it's probably useful to talk about is that we don't actually do the studies in PMRA; we review them. It's the companies, the registrants, that do all of the studies according to what Canada would require. Canada requires studies that are very similar to those done in most other OECD countries, but it's the companies that carry out the scientific studies and then we review those studies. So our scientists review the scientific information rather than sit in a lab bench and create science.

º (1610)

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Do you have your staff actually going to some of the sites of the manufacturers and observing their methods and procedures to give yourselves and Canadians the assurance that these studies are being properly conducted using valid statistical methods and laboratory procedures?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Studies all have to be done according to an OECD guideline called “Good Laboratory Practice”. When we review studies, we look to see that they have been done according to good laboratory practice, which deals with all of the things you're talking about.

Studies must be done according to the GLP in labs certified in this process by an international body. That's how we make sure that even though the companies do the studies, the studies are valid. And then we review the studies to make sure that even though they've been done using GLP methods, they are in fact valid.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, so my--

The Chair: Your question time has expired. We'll move on to Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Ken Epp: My time is up, but before I end, Mr. Chairman, I want to be put on the list for the second round, please.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

Ms. Sexsmith, on page 6 of your report you're telling us that on new minor crop uses you've had a sixfold increase on average, prior to 2002, to just slightly in excess of 300. What is the reason for this significant increase? Are you moving the process through faster or have you hired more staff? Is it a combination of both? What are the reasons?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's really a combination of minor uses coming in through joint reviews and the use of crop groupings. Crop groupings are where, in a particular group of types of crops, if you have enough data for some of the main crops within that group, then you get approval for all the crops. It has been related to an increase in minor use, label expansion, submissions for uses. But it's a combination of those things.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You mentioned joint reviews off the top. I'd be interested to hear a bit of elaboration on them. How do they work? Who initiates them? Is this something Canada does more than the United States? How does it work between the two countries?

There was also a reference made to some other countries, and I'm curious to know which countries they are.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Under our NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides, in 1996, while we were starting to work on harmonization, we jumped right in and started to “learn by doing”, as we called it, on the first joint review.

Companies don't have to submit to joint reviews. Since they own the pesticide, it's their choice as to whether they're going to submit to Canada or the U.S., or submit to them together. There were a number of companies that agreed to work with us in the early days.

The process is that they submit the same package to both countries. We split the information and each country does half, so we don't duplicate each other's work. We work together through the process and make a joint decision at the end. Typically, the result would be that you get a registration for the same uses, and the same MRLs or tolerances, on both sides of the border.

We feel it's been a very successful process. We've done about 50 registrations to date. But again, I have to say, it's really up to the company as to whether they're going to submit jointly. We continue to work with them to encourage them. We know there are some issues we still have to work out where we have some differences, not really in data requirements so much any more but in the area of how we do risk assessments.

I believe that answers your question.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And what about the other countries?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We share the work with the other countries. We call it a work-share. For example, if Canada has reviewed a pesticide and made a decision, if we get permission from the company, we'll send our reviews, which is like a summary of each study, to the other country--any of the EU countries or Australia--and then those countries can use the results of our review to do their work more quickly. And globally, through our OECD Working Group on Pesticides, we're trying to do this more routinely.

One of the barriers, as I mentioned--and this is not to be critical; it's just a fact--is that we do have to get permission from the companies in order to share this information with other countries. So if companies don't want us to do it, we can't actually share with a country and they can't share with us.

º (1615)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Does that happen very often?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It happens about 50% of the time.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Is there a reason for that?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I think from the company's perspective there is some nervousness as to what the influence of one country might be on another, negative or positive.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I also want to touch briefly on the emergency registrations, which you referred to on page 4. Again, a little bit of elaboration would be helpful.

I assume that an emergency registration comes about because a farmer is requesting something for a specific crop and he needs it in a hurry. Am I basically on the right track?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. That's essentially it, and there isn't a registration for that particular use.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: So they work through their provincial agricultural organization, provincial agricultural department, and then the agricultural department typically would send us the application. In that case, the agricultural department has to work with the environment department, if that happens to be the regulatory agency--

Mr. Dick Proctor: Provincial or federal?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Provincial.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's really to make sure that the environment department and the province are aware that this is happening and they don't have any issues either.

Then typically we have somewhere between two and four weeks to make a decision. That's why in Canada the emergency registrations are limited to products that have some kind of registration status, because that means the database has already been reviewed in some way. It may be adding a pest, or it may be adding aerial where it's already registered for ground. It's that kind of thing, typically.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Two to four weeks sounds to me like it would be a long time in some cases. If a farmer needs a product and sees a pesticide that he needs to deal with, you'd have to have that kind of lead time on it?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. We do try to turn emergency use or registrations around as quickly as possible. They're the highest priority in the agency during the emergency season.

Our timeline for registering a new pesticide is 18 months, so two weeks is pretty short when you're talking 50 boxes and 300 studies, some of which take three weeks to review a single study. That's just to put the timeline in perspective.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But I would guess that you might do it a little bit faster in some cases than even two weeks.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. In very urgent situations, I guess if that issue comes up and we're faced with that, we try to do it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Have you finished, Mr. Proctor?

Mr. Eyking.

Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess this is following up a little bit on your statement that you do not accept conclusions from other countries, and no other OECD country does that. But you're working more with the United States--closer--and I hope to see the day come when our producers will be able to get products at the same time as producers down in the United States.

Most of the people I have been meeting in the last few months with complaints about your organization are the horticulture groups, and most reasons are because they either sell to the United States or the product comes this way when they're off season, and then consumers or their customers expect a certain product.

I'm going to be more specific on a product that was brought up to me a couple of times in the last few months. It's from the apple growers. The B.C. tree fruit growers and the Nova Scotia apple producers brought this product to my attention. It's called 1-MCP, I think, and they use it in the cold storage of apples. I guess it keeps them longer or firmer, or something like that.

My understanding is that Agriculture Canada is working with you people a bit on this file. We're doing either field trials or storage trials. I guess the thing I'd like to see is for these apple growers to be able to use this product in the upcoming harvest season. That's the whole idea here, right?

Is that possible, and what can we do from Agriculture Canada's side to make it possible? Is there something we're doing wrong, or are we working well together on this project?

º (1620)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, I think we're working well together on this product. It's currently under review. I believe the decision timeline is mid-May. I don't have any sense that we're not going to meet that timeline.

That being the case, it should be registered well in advance of the season. My understanding is that they need it in late August or early September. So we're working very hard to make sure we complete the review and can make a decision, as we had indicated earlier, which would be in May.

Hon. Mark Eyking: It's good to hear that they'll be using that on their apples.

The other product had to do with soil insects, such as wireworm. I was told that a product was being taken off the market and that there was nothing to fill its place. Do you know anything about that?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Are you talking about methyl bromide?

Hon. Mark Eyking: Yes.

Maybe it's not your role to look for other products.You just test the ones that are in existence and the new products coming on to the market.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: One of the reasons we're convening this meeting in May is to touch on that issue so that we can work more closely with growers, registrants, and other stakeholders to make sure that if decisions are being made on the re-evaluation side, we can be as certain as possible to have replacement products available.

Methyl bromide is one of the ozone-depleting products, and they're on the way out. That's out of our control. That was an international agreement.

Hon. Mark Eyking: Are most western countries getting rid of that product?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. There was an international agreement related to ozone-depleting substances. So most of the uses of that product are going to be gone, except for quarantine and critical need uses. There is a process whereby the critical need uses can be considered through Environment Canada and the parties. There is a fallback position. If that's what you're asking, that's where that is.

The Chair: We'll move to Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you. I feel privileged, with all the other members on the other side.

You do not accept decisions made in other countries, but you do use the results of their reviews. What's the difference?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There's quite a big difference. There are 200 or more studies. If you can use the reviews of those studies that were done by other countries and not have to go into the extensive data, you can use that information to make your decision. The issue between accepting a decision and using some information upon which you can base a decision relates to your colleague's question. It would be very difficult for us to defend a decision without any information upon which to base that decision. So that's really the main reason countries don't accept other countries' decisions, because they wouldn't have any information then. But you can use the information that other countries have created to make a decision that's relevant to the country you're in and as well to have enough information to be able to say that the risks are acceptable.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a question with regard to risks. In the event that you gave approval to a product that at the time seemed safe but subsequently proved to be unsafe, do you have an insurance plan or something that covers you in case someone sues you over this?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The liability rests with the registrant for risks to the environment and to health, as well as efficacy. We have a duty of care, due diligence. We have to show that we've carried out our work correctly, but if there were a health or environment issue with a product, the liability would rest with the company.

º (1625)

Mr. Ken Epp: So the Canadian government wouldn't be liable. But you've put your stamp of approval on this product. For example, we have what I consider to be a rather bizarre situation nowadays where people who quite willingly used cigarettes over the years are now suing the cigarette companies and saying, “You shouldn't have sold that to me even though I showed up at the store and bought it.” In the future that could happen.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The approach is that we have to make sure we've done our job correctly, and then we have to show that we've done our job correctly. One of the ways to make sure that pesticides maintain their ability to be used safely is to carry out re-evaluation, which we're now doing on all of the pesticides registered prior to 1995. Under the new act, all of these pesticides will have to be re-evaluated every 15 years. As well, there will be an adverse-effect reporting system in place. That would mean that if the companies are aware of anything adverse related to a pesticide, they would have to make sure they sent that in. Our job would be to make sure we look at that and make a decision on whether or not that's something we have to deal with right away or we can factor in later. That's our duty of care.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Related to that, give us an estimate, a sense of how many products people seek to bring into the country that have approval, say, in the United States, but you decline, and how many products you give approval to that are declined in the United States.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I can't answer that question directly. What I can say is that out of the roughly 3,000 submissions we get a year we make positive decisions on 86% or 87%. Because we see different pesticides in the U.S. and Canada, I couldn't say which ones we've refused that the U.S. has not and so on.

Mr. Ken Epp: How do you make the decision if there is a product that has been in use? For example, when I was a kid, we used DDT a lot, and now you don't use it at all--maybe that's what causes my problems, I don't know. When a product is withdrawn because of a newly perceived or identified health risk, how do you determine when you're going to say, nix on that, it's no longer legal to sell it? Do you take into account the fact that there should be another safe product brought in to meet the need that original product met?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: A decision with respect to unacceptable risks is made currently on an individual basis. Each pesticide has its own line of toxicity, and if there isn't a sufficient margin of safety between the level where there is no indication of impact on a system and the level at which that product would be used, the product has to be taken off the market. That is done typically on a product-by-product basis. However, with the U.S., we are moving to cumulative risk assessment, because there are groups of products that have similar modes of action. So in those cases we would look at the individual products and then take into account all the products that had a similar mode of action.

I'm sorry, I've forgotten the last part of your question.

Mr. Ken Epp: About the replacements.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We do try to make sure there are alternatives in place. That was another reason for having the meeting next month with all stakeholders, to make sure we work together as closely as possible on this issue. Typically, before a decision on an older product is taken, a proposal goes out, so all stakeholders can comment. We do frequently get comments to the effect, “There is no alternative, so can we please keep it a little longer?” If there's no imminent risk of harm, though the overall picture is negative, we try to extend the time for phase-out. On phase-out times we try to link up with the U.S. too, so that if we're phasing it out in a certain time, it's the same as in the U.S.

The Chair: Your time has expired, but you can come back again.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have one more question.

º (1630)

The Chair: Just hold on to it. You may think of another one.

At this point in time we're going to Mrs. Ur.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'll await your call.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been told that an individual in southern Manitoba who falls under zone 5a cannot get corn herbicides from Ontario, even though that particular farmer lives in the same climate zone as Ontario. What is the rationale there? What criteria do you use to formulate these zones?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Back in about 1996 or 1997, when the guidelines for the generation of residue information for setting MRLs on food were being revised, one of the issues was the zone issue. At that point in time, Statistics Canada used the information available then—on climatic and soil and that sort of information—to put it together with their database, to come out with the Canadian zone map.

Then, a few years later, we were working with the U.S. to harmonize our zones as much as possible, and we now have a contiguous map going from the U.S. to Mexico.

But you're right, there is a zone called 5a and a zone called 5. We recognize that this is an issue and we are working with the U.S. on it. The U.S. doesn't recognize our zone 5a as 5.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Excuse me, I'm not worried about the U.S. with this particular question, as the farmer was in Manitoba.

Why can't that farmer in Manitoba get the same product as the Ontario farmer, if they're in the same zone?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I can't answer that question. I thought you were getting at the 5 versus 5a issue between the U.S. and Canada.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No. My question was about two farmers who live in the same zone but can't use the same product.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Okay. I can't answer that.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What's the relevance of having a zone if you don't—

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There's another potential issue.

Do you have the name of the product so that I can follow up and get back to you?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I can get that for you, I'm sure.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Can you, please, because registrations are sometimes done for the east or the west, and there may be a line there. But if you could get me the information, I will certainly follow up and get back to you.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I apologize.

In your opening remarks you stated that PMRA uses crop groupings here in Canada. Is that factual?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Oh, yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What percentage would you use them for?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: As often as possible. I couldn't give you a percentage, but we're always looking to crop group. If information comes in, we're trying to stretch it, not just for residues but also through efficacy. Typically, we're working with registrants and sponsor groups to try to make sure we get some rationale information to help us do the bridging.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: We've had quite a few calls regarding your risk cup calculations. Canada apparently takes a worst-case scenario approach in its judgments, which is having a slowing-up effect on evaluations.

Are you addressing that concern?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'm not sure exactly how to answer that. We have the same approach really in evaluating pesticides as the U.S. does, in most cases. We would have some differences in some areas of risk assessment. We are trying to close the gap, or to move closer together.

I guess my answer would be that our risk cup may fill up a little faster if we are doing some things a little differently than the U.S., or if we have less refined information.

º (1635)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I said so because I have this document that says, “Reduced Risk Uses Comparisons by Active Ingredient - current to early 2004”. For crops that are the same in both countries, the United States is at 280 plus plus, and here again Canada is only at 80.

This is not a level playing field, which is what we constantly hear from our farming group.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Could you repeat that, because I really didn't—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I will show it to you later, because I have other questions I would like to ask you.

I've heard rumours that there may be a three-year delay in pesticide re-evaluation due to the EPA announcement and because of the FQPA. I've not seen any press on that but have heard it verbally. This is in spite of the testimony on October 23, 2003, to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, where it was said that it would be done by 2006.

What is going to happen with the extra $14 million per year that has been added to the budget to get this done on time?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: First of all, the U.S has changed their timeline with respect to finishing the re-evaluation on non-food pesticides. They've changed theirs from 2006-07 to 2008 because of workload.

Because our re-evaluation program is very tied to the results of their re-evaluation program, our schedule is similar to theirs. The commitment on re-evaluation of food uses is the same; it's still 2006-07, but because we base our information, our results, on their information, we really need their information in order to make our decisions.

The funding that was provided to us to carry out re-evaluation is quite small by comparison to the U.S, and we will still utilize those resources in order to get our work done. We've made, as I indicated, quite a lot of progress; out of the 401, we've completed roughly 32% and intend to finish up to 40% by June.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Can I ask another question, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: I'll have you coming in on another round.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That will be fine.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor, you're finished?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

The Chair: I'm going to go back to the Liberal side simply because some of these people haven't been on yet. Mr. Easter.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're kind today.

I want to come back to the point that Mr. Borotsik raised earlier, and it relates to statements by the Ontario College of Family Physicians. I'm from Prince Edward Island, and we have seen how certain environmentalists attack the industry and products that we need without any substantial or proof lots of times. The issue takes on a life of its own. I do think you have to make a much more extensive effort to get out there and refute what the Ontario College of Family Physicians has said.

Mr. Chair, if they're saying things that aren't accurate and aren't based on science, then they're not a credible organization. They should be a credible organization, but their statement in this case I don't believe to be true.

So I'll ask you directly. Is there any scientific strength to the comments made by the Ontario College of Family Physicians in terms of what they've said in this issue?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The way I will answer that is to note that the information they're likely looking at and the information we're looking at is probably very different.

We look at and review specific studies that are carried out specifically for the purpose of evaluating a pesticide. We're very confident that when we review that information and make a decision with that information it's adequate to decide whether or not the risks are acceptable.

I think that's different from looking at literature, information that may have been developed, not directly related to specific pesticides. I think I'll leave it at that.

º (1640)

Hon. Wayne Easter: One of the issues that industry always raises with me is the cost and the time of getting a product registered for use on Canadian farms. The industry faces some considerable restraints in terms of getting products they need through the PMRA.

So when you wait that time and go through that cost, I think the PMRA has to be there to defend those products that are in fact used once they have approved them. I come back to my belief that I do think that whether it's the minister or whether it's yourself, the information put out by the Ontario College of Family Physicians has to be challenged and challenged directly, and I encourage you to do that.

In terms of time and cost, as I've indicated, that's the biggest concern the industry seems to have. Do you have any time and cost comparisons on getting a product through...? I've read your stuff on the North American initiative with the U.S, Mexico, and Canada. Do you have any time and cost comparisons in terms of how your agency operates and time and cost as compared to the U.S and Mexico? Where are we at in that structure? Do we have an overburden of cost in this country or do we not?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I don't believe we do. I think we have a fairly efficient organization. I say that because our timeline for a complete submission for a brand-new pesticide in Canada is around 18 months. That's substantially shorter than the process the U.S. has just recently announced related to their new cost-recovery initiative. They're looking at 38 months and $475,000 U.S. for the review of a new food use active. Ours is currently--not that this is a competition--18 months and $220,000 Canadian.

We do not have a backlog in Canada. We receive about 3,000 submissions a year and we do about 3,000 decisions. The U.S. has a backlog. I continue to think we are quite efficient, and we'd like to become more efficient.

I think, and I know I've said this before to this committee, and I said it earlier, that one way to make sure we see new technology in Canada is to encourage joint reviews. That way we'd get the technology that the growers on the U.S. side would get at the same time.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I understand you're looking at developing regulations for the Pest Control Products Act.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Where is that process at, and when can we expect it?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The new Pest Control Products Act received royal assent a little more than a year ago. We've been working on the regulations. There are four key regulations plus the existing regulations. One of those regulations is actually now in Canada Gazette, part I, the sales reporting regulation. We're working as fast as possible on the other regulations.

There was a series of pre-consultations on those regulations last summer. We're looking at those comments and then working on the actual regulations to move them forward.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: The last question I had was with respect to products that are genetic in nature. There's a new development, technologically, to use genetic solutions for a lot of pest control particularly. Are you equipped in your agency to also evaluate those kinds of things?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: If you're talking about genetically modified corn with a pesticide, for example, that would be carried out by CFIA. They're the regulatory agency for that type of product. If it was a microbial pesticide that was genetically modified, that would be our responsibility, and, yes, we are equipped.

º (1645)

Mr. Ken Epp: You are equipped for that.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: That was my question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You can't stretch it into another question? I can't imagine, Mr. Epp--

Mr. Ken Epp: You mean I'm being asked to ask more?

The Chair: I am simply giving you an opportunity, Mr. Epp. You have parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Ken Epp: That was my last one that I had prepared.

The Chair: We'll consider, then, that you have exhausted your thoughts on this matter.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have said everything I know. That's incredible.

The Chair: That's a humble admission.

I would suggest that we then go to Mrs. Ur. I'm sure she has plenty of questions.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have quite a few, and I'm sure I'll get some good answers here.

There are four pilot submissions on minor use, I believe. Could you name them?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I may be able to name a few. The actives are not in my head right now. One of them is fenhexamid. There are three others and I forget what they're used on, Rose-Marie, but I will get that information for you.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Great. I'd appreciate that.

Can you perhaps expand on harmonizing risk assessment? Can you define for me what you mean by risk assessment?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. As we work through harmonization, some of the easier things to harmonize are data requirements, which are things like: do you require an acute study and is it the same in the other country?

With regard to risk assessment, it's really how you look at that study and make a decision. One example of a risk assessment where we were different was in how we do a risk assessment with respect to a cancer end point. The U.S. looked at the total population and we looked at individual groups within the population. Together we worked on this and had some experts from the academic community look at this. This has recently been to a U.S. science advisory panel. They've reported back and given us an idea of an approach to assessing cancer risk that we both think we can live with. But it's essentially how you would look at the results of a study and make a decision.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What does the term “pending registration” mean, if we're harmonized?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: You got that, I think, from the risk reduction things. We keep in very close contact with the U.S. They can tell us when they've decided that an active is reduced risk. Then we use that information. They make that decision before they've evaluated a product, so it may still be in their evaluation system. They make the decision as to whether they agree it might be reduced risk before the review, because it's a comparative type of assessment as opposed to an assessment of actual risks. In order for us to use their results, we have to know. Pending registration means it's in their system. It hasn't come out the other end yet. It's a bit misleading because the answer could be no. But that's what I mean. It would be the same in Canada.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Could you provide to the committee the guidelines for OECD studies? You have a study out now. I don't know if you have one or more than one. Is there a single criterion or methodology you use?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There's a vast number. We could provide the website where you could order them. OECD charges. The process for developing OECD guidance is an international one whereby experts from all over the world work together and agree that if you want to answer X scientific question, this is the study you need to have. For example, if you need to understand how to make sure that a chemical doesn't cause cancer, this is the study you would need in order to do that. That's what the guidelines are. It's really how to do a study. All companies, not only in the pesticide world but in all other areas where chemicals are regulated, have to carry out their toxicology tests, for example, according to every single step of that study. That means that you get a uniform approach to doing a study. So a company just can't go to any old lab and do any old study and say, “ We did a study, some rats died, but everything's okay.” They have to do it according to the test guidelines for that data requirement, and then, as I said earlier, they have to do it according to good laboratory practices. It's a way to make sure that studies are useful to countries and are valid. There is a test guideline for virtually every study that's required in a whole suite of regulated environments

º (1650)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have a couple of questions on products. I've been speaking to a few of my farmers. It has to do with strawberries. There's a product called Nova, which they were looking for. Am I correct on the name of that product?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'm not sure. But if you send me the information, I will follow up.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The other product was with regard to onions. Frontier, I believe, is the name of the product.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Right, dimethenamid.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: There's a long technical word, and I won't even try to say it correctly. This began back in 1997. We're in 2004 right now. The onion industry in Ontario is having major problems with the yellow nut sedge on dry onions. Michigan and New York have had good experience with Frontier. All the data have been provided to us on time. According to the information provided to me, New York and Michigan growers have been able to use this product under section 18 for the last four or five years. This puts our onion farmers at a certain disadvantage once again.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I understand that. We don't have a section 18. Our emergency use, as I explained earlier, is based on an already registered active. This is one that doesn't have a registration. I do believe we are currently reviewing it. If that information is wrong, I will alert the committee.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's very important that that move forward. We've given it seven years, and that's quite a bit.

I have one question for Ms. Gerke. She has sat there quietly all afternoon, and I certainly want her to earn her pay. My question is on protocol. When PMRA goes into an area to set up a meeting with growers, do you go through the association or do you just call up a couple of individuals and tell them you're going to meet with them on that day? Do you go through the association in that particular area, or do you just go in and meet with certain farmers unbeknownst to the people in the organizations in that area?

Dr. Imme Gerke: It happens on all levels. And the initiative really comes from the outside; it doesn't come from me. Once during the winter--actually, this year it was the end of November until the end of January--I go to all the provinces, and I ask the PMUC, the provincial minor-use coordinator, to set up the meetings.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's been brought to my attention that this hasn't been happening, and they feel rather left out of the loop. They feel very foolish when these farmers come to their organizations and they're not aware of what's happening. So it's very important, as the federal jurisdiction, that we're seen to be working with the provinces on this. That was also brought to my attention.

Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes, that is what I do, but if for whatever reason the provincial minor-use coordinator does not set up meetings, and the growers contact me directly, then, as I said, what I do is....

I treat things confidentially. If the PMUC is there and the growers want the minor-use coordinator to be there, I have no problem with that whatsoever, none whatsoever. But I think it's important that the growers have the opportunity to talk with me, as an adviser to the growers, the way they want to talk with me. I always encourage them to bring the PMUC in, though, to let the PMUC know whatever exchange we have.

I know this is something we are all working out. It's just that I feel it's not appropriate, if the growers want to talk with me directly, that I then go around and tell everybody the growers contacted me.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Does that happen often, that the growers only want to speak to you and not go through their organization?

Dr. Imme Gerke: I just encourage them to go and let the PMUC know and let the association do it. Whether they do this or not, I don't know. They wouldn't even decide that during the phone call.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

You have a lot of good information in here, but I was just going through this milestone report when the flags went up. On your contents page, under “Perspectives”, among the people you thank for providing their perspective in this report is Julia Langer of the World Wildlife Fund. They have not always been known to be kind to our agricultural sector, to say the least, so I find that first and foremost a little disturbing.

How much credence do we give to the information they provide PMRA as to what happens in registrations? That concerns me a little bit.

º (1655)

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I do believe there are more people in there who have provided information, including the growers.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, I know, and I can appreciate that, but I'm sure the growers wouldn't be against the growers. It's just that those individuals--at times, not always--are not necessarily on the same page as our farming community.

I found this last page quite interesting, too, where it lists the subcommittee contacts on food residues, regulatory capacity building, joint review of chemical pesticides, and risk reduction. You have there all the information and the people we can access in those different areas. I'm not knowledgeable on this, so I'll ask you, working in PMRA, there must be some workings with Justice Canada. Are the names submitted somewhere in terms of who works in Justice Canada to help articulate the PMRA positions?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, those names are not in there. Typically, government lawyers advise government.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, but you have these contacts, so I just wondered if you also have the contacts for the people who work in Justice Canada to help PMRA through the different submissions. For instance, are there certain individuals who look after the PMRA file at Justice Canada?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, there's a lawyer assigned to the PMRA.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Then perhaps you could provide that kind of information as well to us. It may help us along the way.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Sure.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

The Chair: Yes, Ms. Sexsmith.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Mr. Chair, I found Rose-Marie's answer on Frontier. I misspoke, but it is under review now as a minor-use submission.

The Chair: That's the one on onions. Right.

Mr. Easter.

Hon. Wayne Easter: No more questions.

The Chair: I have two questions. First, on the term “efficacy”, we practice that and we make that part of the criteria for registration and approvals in Canada. The U.S. does not. Why?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: In both the U.S. and Canada, efficacy generation is required.

The Chair: In the United States as well?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, efficacy generation is required. The difference is that in the U.S. they don't require registrants to submit it and have it reviewed. They do expect that they will have it. In Canada we do require that it's submitted and we do review it.

The Chair: Since we don't have a representative from British Columbia, I'm sure the British Columbia fruit growers would appreciate me asking a question about a product called azinphosmethyl. I'm not sure I'm saying that right.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: You're pretty close.

The Chair: It's about as close as I can get to it.

This is currently under evaluation by the PMRA and will be phased out by December 2005. It doesn't have a proper replacement product. But the submission of another product called indoxycarb, which is a reduced-risk pesticide according to the information I have, is being withdrawn by the registrant, DuPont.

Why is DuPont withdrawing it? In its place, if we don't have another product, what are the fruit growers in British Columbia going to do? Is there something else that might replace that product?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Azinphosmethyl is under re-evaluation and is being phased out in harmonization with the U.S. The phase-out timelines are precisely the same as in the U.S. Its use in the key crops, including the tree fruits, is being phased out in a slightly longer timeframe. In addition, I believe the company has indicated it may come back in with additional information. If that's the case, both the U.S. and Canada will have a look at that information. It may be that the product will survive, but I can't say for sure.

On indoxycarb, you're correct. The registrant has withdrawn that product. We've committed to working with DuPont, the registrant, to make sure that when they come back in the data package is as complete as possible.

» (1700)

The Chair: Are they continuing their request for registration in the U.S. for indoxycarb?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It already has a registration in the U.S.

The Chair: Oh, it is registered there.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

The Chair: What would be the reason for DuPont withdrawing that? Is there not enough product being sold in Canada to make it worth the cost and effort?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, they would have to tell you that.

The Chair: Okay.

So they don't give you any reasons for withdrawal?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: They've made the decision to withdraw--

The Chair: What would the British Columbia fruit growers do in the event that the first product named is no longer available and indoxycarb isn't there?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, again, one of our approaches is to have the meeting in May, talk to all stakeholders, and see what we can come up with, not specifically on this issue but on issues like this.

The Chair: Well, these are the reasons we have people coming to us and why we have these concerns.

I realize you can't force these people to bring their products forward to register, but if we haven't in any way stood in the way of making it difficult for them, if we haven't in any way inhibited them from bringing their products forward because of our policies and the way we do business here in Canada, then really it's a decision made by big business. But if in some way we have been an inhibitor and a discourager of their doing that, then basically we need to change either our policies or the way we treat people.

I guess my concern is that the PMRA should be seen to be an encourager and an enabler, rather than one that stands in the way. Because ultimately, when a crop is in the ground or on the tree ready to be harvested and we need something in an emergency and we can't get it, it's pretty difficult.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I understand that, and I think we're aware of those kinds of issues.

I guess the first issue is that we have to have enough information to find acceptable risk. Then secondly, we are continually working with registrants and other stakeholders to try to get the submissions we need for the uses in Canada. We have always found that working jointly with the U.S., making simultaneous decisions, is better. That's why you hear and you will continue to hear me say those kinds of things.

The Chair: I guess when I look on the map, which we looked at earlier today, and I see my property on Manitoulin Island categorized in the same way as my land in Huron County, I have to wonder whether my real estate values have gone up or how we can make that.... I just don't see how that can be, but that's what the map says.

I guess as a committee we would like to have an answer to the question raised by my colleague in terms of why a Manitoba corn producer can't use the same products that a corn producer in southwestern Ontario can use.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Oh, absolutely.

I would just need a little more information, like what the product is. It may in fact actually state that on the label. I would have to find out why.

The Chair: Okay.

Do you have another question?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's just a quick question.

I may not have heard you regarding phased-out products. Did you indicate today that products will not be taken off the shelf prior to another product being available?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I guess what we'd like to do is work more closely with all stakeholders on this issue of re-evaluation, transition, and access to new products. Certainly, if there's a case of unacceptable risk and risk of imminent harm, we don't have any choice. But what we'd like to do is work more closely with them to make sure we have a clear idea of what the alternatives are and when they can be available and to work out phase-out times.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I hope you realize that once the crop is there, you can't just put it on hold, put a big net over it and hope nothing is going to happen to it.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No, I realize that--we realize that. However, we do have to be able to determine that the risks are acceptable, and then, as you indicated to me earlier, support that process of determination of acceptable risk. That's precisely why we want to meet in May with all the stakeholders and work through this so that to the best of our ability, we'll have alternatives before we phase something out.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Well, I hope so.

I have one last question. You indicated you're meeting in May. You realize how time sensitive May is. May is a busy time for farmers.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Oh, I know. I recognize that.

» (1705)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That hasn't yet been a complaint from my farmers, but having been a farmer in my previous life, I find that's perhaps not the best time to have a conference, to have the stakeholders there and make good use of their time.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We're sensitive to that, but the issue was do we wait and miss the opportunity to make sure we're transitioning properly and that we have all hands on deck on these important issues, or do we do it and then do some more afterwards? So it was really just to start the ball rolling.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Maybe in future decisions, that can be taken into consideration.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Oh, it is. We thought about it, but the issue was timeliness, really. We will follow up with others.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Wendy and Imme, for coming back again. We will continue the process of six-month visitations, and that will lead us to around November 1, if my calculations are correct.

In the meantime, all the best and let's hope we can find accommodations where perhaps in the past we haven't.

On Monday we will continue our meetings. We will be meeting with trade officials concerning the potential fact of world trade negotiations and the Cartagena protocol. We'll have Agriculture Canada, Foreign Affairs, and Environment Canada here.

Yes, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Are we going to begin with a short in camera session to deal with the issues that came up at the beginning of this meeting?

The Chair: If we can find accommodation, if people are here early, or we may--because of the fact that we have experts here--have to do it at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would say we could do it now, because there's time--

The Chair: No, we don't have enough people here.

Mr. Ken Epp: --but unfortunately, the principals who were raising the issue aren't here.

The Chair: So let's leave that. We will find time to do it, Mr. Epp.

At this time I'm going to call the meeting adjourned. Thank you very much.