Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 3 - Evidence of November 7, 2002
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-8, to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, met this day at 11:08 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Marjory LeBreton (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome. Our witnesses this morning are Dr. Claire Franklin and Ms. Geraldine Graham from Health Canada, and Mr. Basil Stapleton from Justice Canada.
Dr. Claire Franklin, Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. I have taken note of the points that were raised during the second reading debate and I will address these as I go along.
[Translation]
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada administers the Pest Control Products Act, the PCPA, on behalf of the Minister of Health and manages the regulation of pesticides at the federal level in Canada. Bill C-8 would enhance our ability to do this in many ways.
[English]
Unlike the current legislation, Bill C-8 outlines a clear mandate for the minister in administering the bill, which puts the protection of health and the environment first. The bill also contains a preamble that sets the tone for the substantive provisions of the proposed legislation that affect how pesticides are regulated in Canada. These factors include the importance of pest management in Canada's economy, the complementary jurisdictions of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in this area, and the importance of public and stakeholder participation in the regulatory system.
A major component of the federal pest management regulatory system is the pre-market evaluation of potential health risks, environmental risks and value of products proposed for use in Canada. Bill C-8 would strengthen the legislative foundations for ensuring that a pesticide is not registered for use in Canada unless the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, has determined that the health and environmental risks and the value of the pesticide are acceptable.
What does ``acceptable'' mean? With respect to health and environmental risks, Bill C-8 states that risks are acceptable if there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result. This is a very stringent standard and one that has been used in practice for some time, but now, for the first time, this definition would be entrenched in the law.
The ``value'' of a pesticide is defined in Bill C-8 as the product's contribution to pest management, including its efficacy, host tolerance, health, safety and environmental benefits and social and economic impact. Insisting that a pesticide's value, as well as its risks, be acceptable before it is registered ensures that the public is not exposed to any risk, no matter how small, if the product does not serve a useful purpose.
In order to evaluate the health and environmental risks of a pesticide, the PMRA requires pesticide companies to provide the results of extensive studies conducted to internationally set standards. PMRA evaluators then assess these results to determine what the risks will be when the product is used as a company proposes.
Unlike the current act, Bill C-8 specifies important considerations that must be taken into account when conducting these evaluations: that the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable groups, including infants and children, must be considered; that an additional margin of safety must be applied to protect infants and children from risks posed by pesticide residues in food and when pesticides are used in and around homes and schools; cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way and aggregate exposure from food, drinking water and domestic use of pesticides must be considered; and government policies, such as the Toxic Substances Management Policy, must be taken into account.
These concepts have already been adopted in current PMRA practices, but until now, they have not been specified in law.
A question about the extra safety factor to protect children was raised during the second reading debate on Bill C-8. The bill requires that an additional tenfold safety factor be applied unless the minister has determined that a different safety factor would be appropriate on the basis of reliable scientific data. This discretion is necessary so that the most appropriate factor can be selected based on the scientific data at hand: for example, the degree of completeness of the database and whether there is any potential for pre- and post-natal effects. The appropriate factor may be greater or less than 10. The selected factor and rationale would be documented in the agency's detailed evaluation reports, which would be available to the public.
I believe the most significant contribution that Bill C-8 would make is in opening up the regulatory system to meaningful participation by stakeholders and by the public. The following provisions are particularly important:
Original registration decision: It would be mandatory to consult the public before a major registration decision is made final. Major registration decisions include any decision to grant or deny an application for full registration of a new active ingredient or a major new use. The PMRA has been consulting the public on major registration decisions for some time, but at present, has to have permission from industry before the documentation can be released.
Special review and re-evaluation: Members of the public could request that a special review of the registration of a pesticide be carried out. The public would be consulted about any registration decision following a re-evaluation or special review before the decision is made final.
Reconsideration of a registration decision: Members of the public could file a notice of objection to a major registration decision. The minister could then decide whether to establish a review panel to reconsider the decision. The review panel process would be open to public participation. Under the current legislation, the only persons who may request the reconsideration of a registration decision are unsuccessful applicants and registrants whose registrations are cancelled or suspended.
Public registry: This registry would include information about registrations, applications, re-evaluations and special reviews, including the PMRA's detailed evaluations of the risks and values of pesticides. The only information not included would be confidential business information, or CBI, and test data. The definition of ``CBI'' and whether the public is getting as much information as it should on the risks posed by pesticides was another issue that was raised during second reading debate. CBI would be defined narrowly to include only financial information, manufacturing processes and formulant ingredients that are not of health or environmental concern. The identity and concentration of formulants that are of health and environmental concern would not be held in confidence, and thus could be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets, or through a public registry. We believe the bill reflects an appropriate balance between providing information about products to the public and protecting legitimate business interests.
Test data: Test data are the results of scientific studies submitted in support of pesticide registrations and are the basis of the evaluations of risk and value. These data would remain confidential, but the public would be able to view them in a reading room.
Bill C-8 would also improve post-registration control of pesticides in a number of ways. First, it must be remembered that registration does not confer unrestricted rights respecting the marketing, sale and use of pesticides. On the contrary, the registration includes detailed instructions on how the pesticide must be used to comply with the law. These are known as ``conditions of registration.'' Bill C-8 specifies two new conditions of registration for all pest control products: First, that product safety information, including a material safety data sheet, be provided to workplaces where the product is used or manufactured; and second, that information on sales of the product be provided to the minister.
There is a continuing responsibility to ensure that the risks and value of a registered pesticide are still considered to be acceptable. This is done through re-evaluation or special review, and Bill C-8 would strengthen the existing provisions for these programs. Another important feature of Bill C-8 is that it includes provisions for mandatory reporting of adverse effects — new information indicating that the health and environmental risks or value of a registered pesticide may no longer be acceptable. This information could justify the need for a special review.
Bill C-8 would provide the authority to remove products from the market or modify their conditions of use upon completion of or during a re-evaluation or special review. The bill specifies that in determining appropriate actions during re-evaluations or special reviews, the precautionary principle must be taken into account. In other words, if there is reason to believe that a registered pesticide is posing threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impacts or environmental degradation.
A question was raised during second reading debate as to why the precautionary principle is not included in other clauses of the bill. The importance of the precautionary principle when re-evaluating a pesticide that is already registered is that it would allow rapid intervention to prevent ongoing exposure to the pesticide while a more detailed scientific evaluation is undertaken. When it comes to the pre-market review of pesticides that are not yet registered, the precautionary principle does not apply because it is not possible for a pesticide that is not being used in the country to pose threats of serious or irreversible damage. As I mentioned earlier, that pesticide will not be allowed onto the market unless there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result. This provides a more stringent standard of protection than the precautionary principle would.
The mandate of the minister and the PMRA in regulating pesticides goes beyond simply ensuring that risks and value are acceptable to actually ensuring that risks are as low as possible. Bill C-8 would provide a more solid legislative foundation for this by explicitly including in the mandate provision, the objective to ``seek to minimize health and environmental risks posed by pest control products, and encourage the development and implementation of innovative, sustainable pest management strategies by facilitating access to pest control products that pose lower risks and by other appropriate measures.''
The PMRA already has many initiatives underway to encourage the registration of reduced-risk pesticides, such as its joint review program with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and its recently announced new program for reduced-risk pesticides where the application is made only in Canada. Under these programs, data requirements are specifically tailored to the type of product involved and the application is reviewed more quickly. Bill C-8 would support these initiatives by requiring the minister to ``expedite evaluations with respect to a pest control product that may reasonably be expected to pose lower health or environmental risks.''
The bill also supports application of the ``substitution principle'' by providing authority to conduct comparative risk assessments and refuse or cancel registration if safer alternatives are available.
The issue of minor-use pesticides was also raised during second reading debate. The PMRA has had programs in place to facilitate the registration of these products for many years through action in areas that it controls, such as data requirements, review timelines and registration processes. These efforts have been significantly enhanced over the past several months. In press releases on May 22 and June 24, 2002, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food announced initiatives to give Canadian producers better access to reduced-risk pesticides, including those used on minor crops. In addition to increased resources to allow Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, to generate the essential data to support these minor uses, the PMRA will receive resources to expedite their review. A full-time minor use adviser has been appointed to work in the PMRA to liase with grower organizations, provinces, registrants and AAFC. The government response to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food called ``Registration of Pesticides and the Competitiveness of Canadian Farmers'' describes these initiatives in detail.
Bill C-8 includes authority to make regulations respecting pesticide minor uses, and this would be done in consultation with stakeholders and the provinces and territories.
In closing, I believe that the proposed new pesticide legislation would strengthen Canada's rigorous safeguards against the risks to people and to the environment from the use of pesticides. Canadians would have access to more information and new opportunities for input into major pesticide registration decisions. A modernized, strengthened and clarified law on pesticide regulation would provide the solid legislative foundation needed to reduce risks posed by pesticides and facilitate the availability of newer and safer products.
Senator Morin: First, I should like to welcome a friend, Dr. Franklin, who is a toxicologist. Pesticides are necessary for Canadian agriculture, but, by definition, they are toxic substances that pose a potential risk to the environment and to health.
I support Bill C-8. The current act is 30 years old and it is time to change it. Not everyone is satisfied, but it is a good compromise — mainly, it will protect human health and the environment.
The registration of pesticides is the application of a science-based approach. Instead of the precautionary principle, which is a more legal term, they are bringing in the concept that a new product will be accepted only if there is reasonable certainty that there will be no harm to human health, to the environment and even to future generations. Viewed from a scientific angle, you cannot go any further in efforts to protect the environment and health. I have three questions that I should like to pose to Dr. Franklin. The first one concerns the matter of user fees. Every country has user fees for its pesticide management. I believe that Canada has the lowest user fees of all countries. There was a report in 1998 on user fees that stated we were the lowest of the OECD countries. Does the agency actually keep these fees for itself? In other words, are those fees added to its budget or are they added to the General Revenue Fund?
Ms. Franklin: The fees collected go to consolidated revenues and they are a line item on the budget of the agency. We have resources that come from the government and, in addition, from cost recovery fees, but they do not come to us directly.
Senator Morin: If the fees were increased next year, would that mean you would have an increase in budget by that same amount?
Ms. Franklin: Yes. The fees are based on the costs, and the revenues generated are then applied to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, so they are directed.
Senator Morin: You do keep your user fees.
Ms. Franklin: Yes, we do.
Senator Morin: That is important.
The second question involves timelines. One of the objectives of the proposed legislation should be the approval of an application in a timely fashion. According to this proposed legislation, a new pesticide would be registered only if it is safer and more effective than its predecessor already on the market.
For Canadians, and for the environment, it is important that this product be available on the market as soon as possible, provided it is safe and effective. I realize that, according to our 1998 external report on PMRA, there were delays and that it is a matter of resources. Not to be critical, but there are problems with the timely assessment of pesticides in Canada. I am surprised that timeliness is not one of the objectives or part of the mandate. Perhaps I am wrong, but safety, efficiency and timely assessment would all seem important. If a pesticide is better and the application sits on a shelf for six or seven months before it is actually reviewed, then this could be detrimental to Canadians in general. I am not suggesting an amendment, but a timely assessment of a pesticide should have been introduced. I know there are some exceptions, but for every new pesticide that is registered, timeliness should have been included.
Ms. Franklin: In fact, we do have a flag within the bill for reduced-risk products so that expedited reviews are given.
Senator Morin: I realize that.
Ms. Franklin: We also have, within regulatory directives, which comprise a non-regulation process, three areas that we utilize to regulate pesticides: The legislation, which gives us the overriding authority; regulations, which give detail; and regulatory directives, which add even further detail.
We do have timelines in these directives. We have shorter timelines for the safer products. In 1996, we introduced joint reviews with the U.S. Reduced-risk pesticides was the first category for joint review. We have recently put out, in this past year, a guideline or directive that indicates that we will have reduced timelines for reduced-risk products when the applications are only made in Canada.
Senator Morin: I realize that, by definition — I am sure you would not bring in a pesticide that has higher risks than an existing one — a new pesticide, whatever its category, has either reduced risk or greater efficiency. If that is not the case, then it should not be approved. I will not belabour the point, but I think this should apply not only to certain categories, but to all of them. However, I understand what you are saying.
My last question deals with the report that was published last week by the commissioner on the environment that dealt with your agency. I am not sure you are pleased to see that there will be an in-depth audit of your agency in 2003.
Ms. Franklin: It keeps up with the trend. Every year since the agency has been in existence, we have either had a standing committee review or an audit. We would miss it if it did not take place.
Senator Morin: I am sure you will manage without problems. There are three criticisms, and I am wondering whether the proposed legislation addresses them. One is the policy on pesticide risk reduction, the second is re- evaluating existing pesticides and the third is the fact that there is no database on pesticide sales. Could you tell us if this bill addresses these criticisms by the commissioner?
Ms. Franklin: On the issue of reduced risk policy, it is correct that we have not written any specific policy. We have many activities that are part of that. We wanted to try to find out how we were going to move into the whole risk reduction area. This is a new field for federal regulation of pesticides. We do have a policy under consultation interdepartmentally, and that piece of paper that pulls together many of the activities we already undertake will be available in the not-too-distant future.
As for the second one, on re-evaluation, the commitment the agency has made, and we are very tied into it, is that we are carrying out our re-evaluation program in concert with the Environmental Protection Agency. It is the least expensive and smartest way for us to proceed on this. The commitment is that by 2006, we will have all the active ingredients registered before 1994 re-evaluated. The auditor was critical in that the numbers we have done so far are fairly small, and he is not convinced we will be able to meet that target by 2006. I would only point out we have dealt with the most difficult ones first, so that has taken a greater amount of time. We have had to address the issue of aggregate exposure and cumulative risks. The organophosphorous pesticides have a similar mode of action, and we have had some very intensive scientific discussion as to how one accumulates the exposure to a group of products that are used on a variety of foods at different times, et cetera. The complexity of what we had to do has taken longer in the case of that group. My expectation is that we have really rounded the corner on that and that the remainder will go much more quickly. I remain optimistic that we will meet our targets.
On the third item, the sales database, we absolutely have to have this proposed legislation. The sooner we do, the sooner we will be able to get the sales database. The sales database gives a mark or a surrogate for what use might be out there, so it is of great interest as a measure of whether we are reducing our reliance on pesticides.
Senator Keon: You touched on your joint cooperative evaluations with the U.S., which make a lot of sense. I was wondering how you are using information that is unfolding in the rest of the world, particularly the developed world. How are you getting all this information into your databank and what are you doing with it? Do you have the technical capability to gather this data from other developed countries?
Ms. Franklin: For a brand new active ingredient, in many instances there is little data available from other areas. These are new registrations in Canada, and in many cases there is not that much additional information. The source of information for those decisions is generally what comes in with the very comprehensive data package that the registrant supplies.
Re-evaluation is a different story and a more complex issue, because products will have been used in many countries for many years. We do gather that information. We in fact work very closely within OECD and with other countries within the EU. We do have a number of sources from which to gather the information when we are doing the re- evaluation. We also ask researchers in Canada within other departments to provide any information that they may have, and the provinces, if they have monitoring information. We put out a notice saying we are doing a re-evaluation and asking people to provide the information. We try to benefit globally by obtaining information, and if there has been a re-evaluation, we are much more actively involved with the Europeans, in addition to the U.S., because they also are tackling this mammoth task of re-evaluating all of the existing actives. We really do try to exchange as much information as we can. It has been a very fascinating, challenging and interesting exercise over the past several years to work together with other regulatory agencies.
Senator Keon: There is no global safety net, though? I am thinking of the effect of these things on the environment from a global perspective, with fish swimming from our shores to other shores.
Ms. Franklin: You are correct, but we are starting to do that. For example, the U.S. has had an adverse effects reporting system for many years. Again, we will have the legal authority to require adverse effects reporting with the proposed legislation. We will adopt in many ways the philosophy and intent of how adverse drug reports have been gathered. There is a lot of experience in that area, in getting global reports. From an environmental perspective, we have to keep in mind that climatic and geographical conditions are different, and that events that may occur in one country are not necessarily directly applicable to Canada. However, where they are, we do try to gather and use that information.
Senator Morin: I thought Senator Keon was posing the following question. The use of a pesticide in another country will have an affect in Canada, especially in the North. The organochlorines that are used even in Africa, through trade winds and so forth, will accumulate in Canada and affect our own Aboriginal people. Is there a global safety net for this? Can we influence this in any way, or will these countries keep on using toxic products in large amounts, and we, being downwind of that, suffer all these ill effects? I am not sure if that was the question he was asking, but that was the way I interpreted it.
Ms. Franklin: There are groups that work on that. POPS is one group of chemicals beings looked at. It is interesting, because if we look at north-south, there has been a very active process whereby both Canada and the U.S. have been working with Mexico to assist them in stopping the use of DDT, but of course there is the issue that they still have a high incidence of malaria in parts of the Yucatan. We have been working to try to find perhaps other products that they could use instead of relying on DDT, which because it is residual, persistent and not that acutely toxic, is actually a safer product to use in a developing country. Through the POPS initiative and through the North America plan, we actually have worked on, and are seeing major success in, the reduction of use of DDT in Mexico.
In Canada, a lot of the air mass moves from the south to the north, so that for our purposes, it is probably most important to see what influence we can have on Mexico and even on countries in South America. There is some circumpolar movement of air pollutants from Russia, and that is an area in which we try to have some international influence. However, we have no extraterritoriality as far as our legislation is concerned. We are really into international law issues when it comes to what we can do in our country to influence the utilization of these products in other countries. There is a lot of work going on to try to get into that.
Senator Keon: I understand that when you were in front of the committee in the House of Commons, they were asking why the precautionary principle was not more prominent, and why it was not in the preamble and parts of the bill besides the clause where it appears. Is there a reason for that? Why were they so concerned, and why did you not put it in?
Ms. Franklin: I will ask Mr. Stapleton to give the more fulsome legal aspect, but as I briefly mentioned, it is in the part of the bill dealing with re-evaluation because those products are already out in the marketplace. If there is some reason to believe there is a problem with them, we may want to be able to act quickly rather than wait until we have all of the scientific evidence.
In the other part of the bill, new products do not get on the market until we are convinced that there is reasonable certainty of no harm. That is actually a more stringent endpoint than the precautionary principle. That is a toxicologist's view of why we have it for the re-evaluation of older products and do not need it for entry of new products.
Part of the discussion has been based on the utilization of the term in other pieces of legislation. We need to keep in mind that pesticides are a fully regulated product. They cannot be used or sold unless registered. We have a much tighter capacity. We do not let them on the market if we think there is a problem, and we can take them off if we think there is a problem. That gives us a strong capacity to prevent their utilization if we do not consider that they are safe.
Mr. Basil Stapleton, Legal Counsel, Justice Canada: I think a useful starting point, although Dr. Franklin certainly covered the ground pretty well, is to recognize that the use of the term ``precautionary principle'' is quite distracting, in fact, because it is usually used to refer to the principle as it was reflected in the Rio declaration. The Rio declaration itself did not state it or regard it as being a principle. It said that in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to use a precautionary approach, and it then describes those circumstances. However, there are at least 14 other international legal instruments that also describe various kinds of precautionary approaches that are appropriate to use in different circumstance. For some reason, the term ``precautionary principle'' has become attached to the Rio declaration and has acquired almost a kind of mystique that leads people to believe that it is a universal principle to be applied to address all kinds of risks in all kinds of circumstances, whereas in fact that really is not the case. It would be quite inappropriate, in the case of the regulation of pesticides under a regime that is a pre-market approval system, to lower the level of protection so that you would only refuse to register a pesticide if there were a threat of serious or irreversible damage. The standard that we set for refusing registration is much higher than that. We will refuse to register unless there is a reasonable likelihood of no harm. In some ways, we get into an unfortunate semantic dilemma when we use the principle and attempt to fit the Rio declaration's description of a precautionary approach into circumstances where it really does not belong, and where it would, in fact, be detrimental rather than beneficial.
Senator Keon: I want to go back to the users. You have described quite well the broad process of consultation and regulation and so forth, but when it comes down to the pragmatic interface with your users, how will this occur? Will this be on an ad hoc basis, with some spot checks, or is there a process for looking in a recurring way at the use of these products over a geographic area?
Ms. Franklin: When the product is registered, the potential for exposure and the risks to users are definitely part of that assessment. We look at the amount of exposure that a person might get when applying the product. We look for bystanders — in other words, if somebody is using it and someone else is walking by, what is the exposure? We do all of that upfront so we know whether the product can be used safely.
The next part is whether it is being used properly. Once it is registered, are farmers using the product correctly, and what sort of controls do we have over that?
As I mentioned in my comments, several levels of government are involved in pesticide regulation, the provinces very actively. We work collaboratively with them to set standards for workers, and in many provinces they have requirements that users be licensed. They take it the next step to make sure that not only is a product okay if it is used exactly according to label directions, but then they make sure that people who are using it are certified to do that.
We have compliance capacity within the agency. If there are incidents where a product is not used appropriately, we have the capacity to take measures that are relevant to the particular misuse, right from a fairly minor warning to a fine to prosecution under the criminal authorities in the Pest Control Products Act. We do rely very heavily on the provinces to assist in this process, and we work very closely with them.
The Deputy Chairman: I have a question on usage. Consider that 90 per cent of our population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border, and we share shorelines of rivers and various bodies of water, and consider a situation where a product has been approved in the U.S., perhaps more for use in the south because of the climate, and then it moves up north. Do we ever get into a situation where they are using a product that we consider harmful? If so, how do you resolve a dispute like that?
Ms. Franklin: We do not have authority under this bill to take action. If the U.S. is using a product that, via the air or water, gets into Canadian space, we cannot take action under our legislation. We do work very closely with them, and I think under both NAFTA and environmental committees, there can be perhaps persuasion or agreement to try to sort out what is occurring, but there is no direct legal authority to stop them from using it. Those situations are rare. Where we have had more problems over the years is with the persistent organic chemicals, the organochlorines. Worldwide, they are actually not being used as much, and we are gradually seeing their use decline. The U.S. has been on very much the same timeline as we have in reducing or eliminating the use of these products. It is an interesting area, because it is probably more amenable to negotiation than any kind of legal authority. We had, on the IJC group that I participated in many years ago, a lot of interaction to try to come to grips with some of these boundary issues.
The Deputy Chairman: I was interested in your comments about DDT. I was raised on a farm, and I am familiar with it because we used to spray it around our stable to kill flies. We were producing milk. Then we got rid of the use of DDT in Canada. In Mexico, they use it a lot. Do we actually manufacture products here that we would not use ourselves but that we allow our manufacturers to sell, such as DDT? Is that excess product that they are trying to get rid of, or are they still manufacturing it?
Ms. Franklin: The situation in Canada from a public health and environment perspective is good, but perhaps not so good from an industrial perspective. However, we do not have a great deal of primary manufacture of active ingredients. A lot of the work done in Canada is formulation of products. It is not really an issue of any major magnitude.
We do have, under the recent PIC convention, which is under ratification in many countries, the capacity for prior informed consent. Now this is an informal process, but it will be legally binding, so that an importing country has the right to information on whether or not what they were importing was a good product or was toxic. They would be informed, so they would not be making a decision to accept a product when they were not aware of the potential problems.
Senator Morin: Does this proposed legislation not address exports? Is there not a section on exports?
Ms. Geraldine Graham, Head, Regulatory Affairs, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: Yes, there is. There is authority in the bill to make an export control list and develop regulations, but the PIC convention is being implemented in advance of that. Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette in September under CEPA, and pesticides are subject to those regulations. However, instead of waiting for this authority, we have gone ahead and made the necessary legal arrangements so that pesticides can come under this PIC convention and Canada can ratify it. Any pesticide that has been banned or severely restricted in Canada or in another country and has ended up on the PIC list can be specifically controlled, and we are doing that through a permit system. Someone would need to apply for a specific permit, and we would ensure that the importing country had consented to that and had all the information needed to make an informed decision.
The Deputy Chairman: Clause 33, export controls.
Ms. Graham: Right.
Senator Léger: It is most encouraging to hear that the specialists in the field are discussing a proposed law. Is there a great deal of pressure or competition from people who create products? People continue to want to sell things, and they have to go through your office, I imagine, but is there a lot of pressure? I am thinking of the big pharmaceutical companies, which have a lot of power. Do you have that same competition?
Ms. Franklin: Is there pressure from industry to have products registered? Yes. They are all sitting behind me, and you can ask them that question when they appear at the table. Yes, there is pressure, no question.
Senator Léger: Did I understand that there were a few things that you felt were missing from Bill C-8 that should be included?
Ms. Franklin: No. Bill C-8 does two things. We wanted to make certain that people were aware of a number of the issues in risk assessment, but we do not have to do it in legislation. The new bill very clearly states that we have to do things, so from a public perspective, there is very tangible and visible evidence that we are doing them. I feel that we have the capacity within the new bill to do a very appropriate job of protecting the health and environment of Canadians. It allows us to be as modern and as complete and as scientifically up to speed as other developed countries such as the U.S. and the major European countries. I think it is a solid bill.
The Deputy Chairman: Since there are no further questions, I thank Dr. Franklin, Ms. Graham and Mr. Stapleton for appearing before us.
Next we have Ms. Coombs, Mr. Hepworth and Mr. MacLeod.
Ms. Shannon Coombs, Director, Government Relations, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association: The Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association is delighted to be here today to present our key concerns on the new, amended Bill C-8 before you.
CCSPA is pleased that the proposed legislation was tabled by Minister McLellan and amended this spring by the Standing Committee on Health. CCSPA has been supportive of tabling this bill since the Pesticide Registration Review team delivered its recommendations in the 1990 Blue Book.
CCSPA has been and continues to be an active participant in all forums of discussions and consultation on the many issues falling within the purview of the PMRA. Currently, we are members of the Minister's Pest Management Advisory Council, or PMAC, soon to be enshrined in legislation, and the Executive Director's Economic Management Advisory Council, EMAC. Both of these forums offer opportunity for stakeholders to improve overall public policy and management within the agency.
First, I would like to introduce our association. Who are we? CCSPA is a national association representing 40 member companies who are small, medium and large-scale manufacturers, processors, formulators and distributors of institutional and household cleaning products such as soaps and detergents, sanitizers and disinfectants, deodorizers, pest control formulations for domestic use and automotive chemicals. I have brought a bilingual one pager for your information, which has been distributed.
Most important, it has a photo on the front of the products that our members make, which are often found throughout our homes.
The CCSPA member companies that produce products regulated under the PCPA are mostly end-use formulators. This sector is small, and consolidating as the cost to do business increases. They design and produce products based on fully and completely registered technical active ingredients and formulants. CCSPA member companies use less than 1 per cent of the entire active ingredients sold in Canada. Their perspective is focused on the production and delivery of formulated products to consumers.
What are the benefits of our products? Consumer pest control products are designed to contribute to a healthy urban landscape. The benefits they bring are based on protecting the health of Canadians and their homes, indoors and out, from insect-borne disease and allergies, insects and weeds. Environmental benefits from healthy lawn and garden maintenance include reduced erosion and less surface water run-off.
In April 2002, an Ipsos-Reid poll found that the majority of Canadians believed that the products used to control pests, insects and weeds in and around the home are safe if used properly. Support for pest control products for the home is strongest, with 84 per cent in agreement with that statement; 72 per cent expressed similar agreement regarding products used on trees, shrubs, lawns and gardens.
Why are we here today, and why are we interested in the PCPA? To provide these benefits to the Canadian public, our industry depends upon a predictable, rigorous and timely registration system. In Canada, industry has to provide a quality submission with scientific integrity, to be screened and then reviewed by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The most modern scientific data to support the registration are required for the evaluation of the product's ``effectiveness and the potential for adverse impact on human health and the natural environment.'' A system with these qualities engenders confidence in the safety and value of the tools that will continue to provide protection to Canadians and their homes.
CCSPA presented eight key concerns to the Health Committee during the proposed amendment process. I will address only three of these concerns today and respectfully propose approaches for the committee to consider.
The first of our concerns is with the lack of specific timelines for all types of submissions. During the Health Committee's review of June 2002, CCSPA requested amendments be incorporated into Clauses 7 and 16. The amendments would have the Minister of Health make regulations with respect to timelines for product registrations and re-evaluations. CCSPA worked with many affected stakeholders on this issue, including user groups, environmentalists and industry. As well, many of the witnesses at the hearing in June, when questioned about including timelines in the proposed legislation, felt it would be a good idea. This includes the Auditor General.
CCSPA was disappointed that the suggested amendments for timelines on all submissions were not included. We feel the exclusion of such an essential concept from the bill will only serve to perpetuate those inefficiencies that plagued the regulatory process prior to legislative renewal.
While CCSPA supports the amendments in the bill to upgrade the annual report to Parliament and the seven-year review, accountability to all stakeholders is essential. A regulatory requirement for timelines would enhance the credibility and predictability of the registration process for all.
Additionally, without timelines, there will be further delays in the introduction of new products and technologies for the Canadian marketplace. This is in direct conflict with the direction provided by the government in the Speech from the Throne:
The government will move forward with a smart regulation strategy to accelerate reforms in key areas to promote health and sustainability, to contribute to innovation and economic growth, and to reduce the administrative burden on business.
It will speed up the regulatory process for drug approvals to ensure that Canadians have faster access to the safe drugs they need, creating a better climate for research in pharmaceuticals.
Clearly the need for timely access to new and emerging technologies plus smart regulations are key issues for the government. CCSPA understands the need for this emphasis in the context of health care, but the underlying principles can be applied to pest control products bringing new and safer technology to Canadians. During your review, you may come to the same conclusion.
CCSPA would respectfully request the Senate committee to offer recommendations to the government to review our concerns on timelines and request the Minister of Health to develop regulations respecting timelines through the federal regulatory process.
Our second key concern is the development of regulations stemming from the new bill. CCSPA supports a fully transparent and strengthened regulatory process for new PCPA regulations. With the new parameters of the bill and the increased amount of work the agency will be required to undertake, it will be necessary to create new regulations with all stakeholders under the guidance of the federal regulatory process.
CCSPA hopes the Speech from the Throne will also help provide guidance to Health Canada officials. It states:
The government will move forward with a smart regulation strategy to accelerate reforms in key areas to promote health and sustainability, to contribute to innovation and economic growth, and to reduce the administrative burden on business.
We anticipate that the minister and her officials will undertake a stakeholder consultation through PMAC, the advisory council, prior to the proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette 1.
We would also respectfully request the Senate committee to offer recommendations to the government ensuring Health Canada develops the most beneficial regulations stemming from the bill in a transparent and inclusive fashion with all stakeholders.
Our third and final concern is one of communication. Bill C-8 clearly meets the commitments of the government outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
The government will take steps to strengthen the security of Canada's food system and reintroduce pesticides legislation to protect the health of Canadians, particularly children.
It also reflects key recommendations from the 1990 review of pest control products, those of more accountability and transparency for the public. Once this bill reaches Royal Assent, it should not languish on a shelf somewhere.
As stated by the Governor General on September 30, ``Canadians know the value and importance of the role of government...'' According to our Ipsos-Reid research, Canadians have a high confidence that the federal government regulates these products. Given these two facts and the new bill, which according to the government delivers a strengthened health and environmental protection, a more transparent registration system and strengthened post- registration control of pesticides, this is a perfect opportunity to highlight the role of Health Canada and live up to the statement made by Minister McLellan that:
The changes introduced today take into consideration the views of all parties, while recognizing that the protection of human health and the environment continue to be the top priority in regulating pesticides in Canada.
She said that on March 21 this year.
The Canadian registration process is one of the most stringent worldwide, and the public needs to know it. With the new bill, there are positive messages for the public. We encourage this committee to recommend to the government that communication of the new bill be a priority.
Mr. Lorne Hepworth, CropLife Canada: Honourable senators, in addition to CropLife Canada, I also speak on behalf of our Urban Pest Management Council. With me today is Mr. MacLeod. I, too, would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you regarding Bill C-8.
By way of introduction, CropLife Canada is the non-profit trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant life science solutions for agriculture, forestry and pest management in Canada. Founded in 1952, CropLife Canada serves as the voice of our industry and as a source of information on crop protection products, that is to say pesticides, and plant biotechnology. The Urban Pest Management Council represents the pesticide industry for uses in the urban and the non-agricultural market.
The clerk has distributed to you a brochure entitled, ``What We Stand For.'' I should like to take a couple of minutes to pause and reflect on that brochure. I raise this because so often, when we as an industry association make interventions in committees like this, or in others, we find ourselves often talking about what we are against, what we do not like, what provision in the bill or the policy in our mind might be flawed and not represent good science. Too often, the public hears what we are against as opposed to what we stand for. I should like to articulate for the members of the committee just that.
As an industry, we stand for safety and innovation. We stand for the protection of human health and the environment, a rigorous, science-based regulatory system and an informed public. We stand for enhancing the quality of life through the benefits of our technology and for realizing a competitive advantage for Canadian farmers and other users of our products. We stand for the use of integrated pest management — using the right pest management tool at the right time in the right place in the right way. All of this is based on a foundation of continuous research and responsible stewardship. Our industry's commitment to health and the environment is demonstrated in CropLife Canada's Stewardship First Program. The Canadian industry is the acknowledged world leader in this regard. Millions of dollars are spent each year to ensure the responsible production, warehousing, distribution, use and disposal of crop protection products — that is to say, the stewardship of our products — through their entire life cycle.
One example of our stewardship leadership is in the management of our industry's empty pesticide containers once farmers have finished with them. Working cooperatively with farmers, dealers, rural municipalities and other stakeholders, we have the highest return and recycle rate in the world. This is a voluntary industry program. Some 73 per cent of all the pesticide containers sold into the marketplace are returned and recycled into fence posts or highway guard rails, just to name a couple of examples. The next best in the world, and where it is mandated through legislation, is Germany, at 50 per cent.
We also stand for innovation and the discovery of new technologies and solutions for Canadian farmers. We believe that reforms to the federal government's regulatory system — so-called ``smart regulation'' — can promote business opportunities and economic growth while maintaining environmental integrity and sustainability.
CropLife Canada believes that Bill C-8 is a modern and solid piece of proposed legislation. We support its timely passage by the Senate.
CropLife Canada has participated in the evolution of the bill through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. We were a witness before the committee and submitted an extensive brief. We would be happy to provide you with copies for your review, if you so wish.
First and foremost, we support the bill's increased protection for human health and the environment. To that end, this bill brings into legislation many of the current scientific policies and practices of both industry and government. I refer to policies that ensure infants and children are protected and which take into account pesticide exposure from all sources, including food and water. I refer, too, to policies that take into consideration the cumulative effects of pesticides, to name but a few.
We support the provisions for greater openness and transparency in the registration system so that the public may be more fully informed, allowing them to see summaries of evaluation reports, the proposed decision and, more importantly, to comment.
Measures in this bill take public disclosure and accountability into largely uncharted territory in Canada. Our members, while somewhat apprehensive, concur with this new approach.
As you can see, we have a high degree of alignment between what we stand for as an industry and the provisions in Bill C-8 in these key areas that are so fundamentally important to Canadians.
We see two important steps in terms of follow-up action once the bill is passed. CropLife Canada looks forward to working with Health Canada on the regulations, the all-important details. We emphasize the need for extensive public communication about the new provisions in the bill.
The members of CropLife Canada and the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada represent a significant proportion of registrants seeking product approvals through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Member sales of crop protection products totalled $1.27 billion in 2001. To put that in perspective for you, Canada represents roughly 3.5 per cent of world sales. Understandably, then, we would be interested in providing input on the new regulations and policy and being active participants in the process. To that end, we offer the full cooperation of our association and the expertise that is within our industry.
Regarding the second point, it is important for the public to know that, through this proposed legislation, the government has raised the bar with respect to safeguarding human health and the environment. The need to disseminate information is particularly evident at this time as many municipalities across Canada address the issue of pesticide use in their communities. Broad and thorough communication will help ensure that Health Canada continues to enjoy the public's trust and confidence as a rigorous and reliable regulator.
The public will have confidence that their government is taking measures to ensure their health and safety, as well as that of the environment. Communication is also required because farmers, users and registrants need to be fully aware of the new bill, including the stipulations around enforcement — quite simply, necessary due diligence on the part of government.
In closing, and to reiterate, CropLife Canada believes that Bill C-8 is a solid and timely piece of proposed legislation. The bill well reflects society's interest and stands to ensure that the health and safety of Canadians are protected as well as the viability and competitiveness of the agriculture and non-agricultural sectors.
CropLife Canada and the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada support an efficient, effective and transparent regulatory system for pesticides that promotes human and environmental health and safety. We also support government policy aimed at enhancing the economic benefits derived from pest management technology.
CropLife Canada looks forward to the Senate's timely passage of Bill C-8 so that our industry can set about working with government on the development and promulgation of the corresponding regulations.
We will be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have, Madam Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: Before I open the floor to questions, I have a question for you, Ms. Coombs. On page 4 of your submission your timeline amendments are mentioned. What reasons did they give for the exclusion of those?
Ms. Coombs: Are you referring to the House of Commons Health Committee?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes.
Ms. Coombs: They did not give any.
The Deputy Chairman: It would be interesting to try and find that out.
Senator Morin: That was most interesting testimony. I should like to pose the same questions that I posed to Dr. Franklin concerning timelines and user fees.
Ms. Coombs, there is a recommendation to develop regulations respecting timelines. I cannot see how a regulation could make a general statement on timelines if it is not in the legislation. I realize that there are some specific products for which there will be a timeline. Generally, however, there is no indication at all that this is addressed through the proposed legislation. It is not one of the objects of legislation, nor is it a mandate of the minister. I am not sure how we can regulate this, unless you have a clear idea.
My next question deals with user fees. In other countries, an increase in user fees brings increasing efficiency on the part of the regulator. In certain countries, such as Australia, the pesticide agency or branch obtains 100 per cent of its budget from user fees. Apparently, the industry is satisfied with this and has timely access.
If the PMRA kept the funds, would you be agreeable to an increase in user fees with the guarantee of more timely approval of your products? Apparently, user fees are lower in Canada than in other countries.
There is a question of detail that I should like to ask Mr. MacLeod. Who are the members of your association, the manufacturers especially? Is it a long list? If so, you could send it to us later. I was interested in Dr. Franklin's comment that we have few manufacturers here, that they are mainly multinationals, and that we manufacture a small proportion of what we use here in Canada. Approximately 3 per cent is not a bad figure for pesticides, because that is far in excess of our population. For example, we use less than 2 per cent of the drugs that are produced around the world. We are using more pesticides as an industrialized country. I am surprised that we do not manufacture any of it here, and there may be a reason for that.
I am amazed and surprised to see that the industry supports greater openness and transparency in other fields. The objection to transparency usually comes from the industry because they are always worried about trade secrets, et cetera. However, I commend you on that. In the long run, if the public is well-informed of the process, there will be more approval of what is going on.
Ms. Coombs: It is important that Canada have a responsive registration process, not just for the safety of Canadians, but also for innovation and economic growth. Often, our formulators want to introduce this new technology, but my member companies are frustrated by the length and unpredictability of the registration timelines.
In 1999, and recently in 2002, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported to the House on those same frustrations in terms of timelines, not just for new product registrations, but also the re- evaluation process.
You commented earlier on a report. In 1998, Minister Rock initiated a third-party benchmarking study that highlighted that the PMRA does take 40 per cent longer to review our products. The information that we brought forward to the Health Committee this spring, obtained through Access to Information, indicated that when our member companies make submissions based upon the active ingredient already registered, the timelines for the registration of those products were exceeded by anywhere from 72 per cent to 119 per cent.
From our perspective, if the agency, at a minimum, would live up to the guidelines for timelines in the management of submissions policy, that would be a good starting point. Our Access to Information data, however, does not support that. We would encourage the development of regulation.
You asked about fee increases. The agency is undertaking a five-year review of cost recovery right now. CCSPA is a participant in that process. We are hoping that the timeline issue can be addressed through that; however, we believe that regulation would be an appropriate way to go.
This view is shared by other stakeholders who presented to the Health Committee. The amendments to clauses 7 and 16 that were put forward in the spring came from CCSPA and the World Wildlife Fund. It is not just industry that is worried about that.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Morin: Thank you.
Mr. Hepworth: Before I ask Mr. MacLeod to respond to some of the points you raised, I will make some general comments.
First, as to timelines, it is important for our members to have registrations reviewed on a timely basis because, at the end of the day, the issue is the Canadian farmer wants access to the same new and, often, better tools as their competitors in the U.S. or Australia, for example. That is a critically important issue for them, and for us.
As to user fees, once again, to put it in the context of the larger picture, for farmers, where are all the costs ultimately reflected? They are all buried in the cost of the end product. Although user fees may be a very small part of the cost of the end product, I sometimes hear farmers raising that this cost and this cost is added, and after a while it is death by a thousand pinpricks. The issue there is making sure we are very fair and judicious. Mr. MacLeod may have more to say on that.
Our membership list is not long. It is on our Web site. To give you a flavour, I would say at the outset that in terms of the agricultural sector and sales in Canada, there is no question that we are blessed by the fact that virtually everyone who is in the business belongs to the association. Examples of the kinds of member companies that would be well-known to you are DuPont Canada Inc., Monsanto Canada Inc., Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc., Bayer CropScience Canada, BASF Canada, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada Inc. Seed and plant biotechnology companies are now involved, and so is Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited and Syngenta Seeds Canada. On the distributions side, we have companies like Agricore United, James Richards International and Cargill Limited. That will give you some idea of the nature of the companies.
On the point on which you were seeking clarification in your discussion with Dr. Franklin, as she pointed out, we in Canada do not do any synthesis of the active ingredient molecule. Typically, here we are formulating the end product and packaging it in a format that is used ultimately by the agricultural and non-agriculture markets.
As to the usage numbers versus population, 3.5 per cent is obviously not insignificant, at nearly $1.3 billion, but at the end of the day, it is a reflection of the size of our agricultural production base.
Finally, on the issue of transparency — I thank you for your comments on that — there is no question that we concur with this. We had mooted much of what is in the bill. We support the reading room concept whereby, if you want to look at the confidential test data, you can go into a secure room — not unlike a budget lockup — and look at how many rats died, what they were fed and all of that kind of stuff.
As I said in my notes, we entered into this with some apprehension. It is a bit of a leap of faith for us. I put all of this forward. Our concern is piracy of intellectual property rights. If that occurs, and the system breaks down, then clearly you will not get innovation in Canada. That is a quick summary of some of the issues.
Mr. Peter MacLeod, CropLife Canada: Before I get into a long discussion, I will ask, have your questions been adequately responded to?
Senator Morin: Yes.
Mr. MacLeod: I was going to add some detail, but I do not think that is necessary.
Senator Morin: I think that $1 billion is a good market. I am not saying we should manufacture everything in Canada. However, Canada is a country that is strong on innovation and has a strong pharmaceutical industry. Also, we consume less than 2 per cent of the world market in drugs. If we looked at it that way — we consume only 2 per cent of anything — we would have no manufacturing at all in Canada. I know you are not personally involved here, but I could not let that go by without saying that I hope that at some point, we will have innovation and manufacturing in Canada — not the total pesticide output, but that we will produce some of it for use in Canada and export the rest. I feel strongly about that.
Senator Callbeck: I looked through the presentation of the witnesses and I do not see where they addressed the point that they made when they presented to the House committee, which was that this proposed legislation does not align itself with similar legislation in the United States. I would like an elaboration on that. If it is not aligned, what is the impact here?
Mr. Hepworth: In our brief to the House of Commons there were a couple of areas on which we felt quite strongly. One was enhancing or expediting the process around reduced-risk product technology, and two, availability and registration of minor use products here in Canada as we get into the bio-economy of the future — small acreage and high-value crops that used to be horticultural issues. Those include fruits and vegetables, and now peas and lentils, as well as all the kinds of crops being grown out West. This whole minor-use segment is becoming a bigger issue relative to the success of the future of agriculture. We recommended virtually word for word the kind of language that is in the Food Quality Protection Act in the U.S., but that amendment was not accepted by the committee, and therefore, not accepted by Parliament.
Having said that, we were pleased that there were some language changes and some wording that reflects some of our intentions. It speaks to the earlier point about those kinds of references potentially helping to foster innovation and discovery here in Canada. There were some changes in a couple of clauses around reduced risk.
Concerning minor use, once again, our preference might have been to have some clear and precise language, like that in the U.S. act. There was an amendment related to regulations around minor use, so yes, our preference would have been for more precise references to those couple of issues. We are happy with the intent of some of the amendments, albeit they did not go as far as we would have perhaps liked.
We also take comfort in the fact that that does not mean that the government does not see these as important. There were two substantive policy announcements about money, for example, for work on minor use, and a new collaborative effort with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Senator Keon: I should like to ask you to expand on that. If legislation were in place that would allow rapid approval of products that are made, approved and used in America, how could that stimulate the industry in Canada? I would see that as the product just coming straight across the border.
Mr. Hepworth: In some instances, it may be products that are manufactured down there or in other OECD economies being made available. About the only crop in Canada where we are the market leaders is canola. If we looked at our huge growth in acreage in lentils and pulses, for example, which have not been so predominant in the U.S. because of the lack of the right climatic conditions, we might see similar interest here in Canada. It is not only discovery, but also formulation research, to formulate products that are suitable to our environmental and climatic conditions, et cetera.
The other major point is that if we do not have a way of addressing that, whether it is merely getting the formulated products registered here or doing formulation research here, then Canada will be the bigger loser, because we cannot then meet some of what I see as the new strategy of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which is a high degree of alignment with our member companies. This involves the whole life science bio-based economy.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Coombs, you indicated in your submission to the House of Commons that you were concerned about having a proper report to Parliament, but in clause 80(1) it calls for the minister to submit an annual report. What was your concern there?
Ms. Coombs: At the time the bill was presented to the Standing Committee on Health, the annual report would be tabled in the House of Commons, but it did not have any specific comments with respect to the registration process or, even more importantly, the number of registrations being done in that current year. That is what we were seeking, and we are hopeful that it will be incorporated into the annual report now with the changes that are before your committee today.
Senator Callbeck: Are you satisfied now?
Ms. Coombs: It is a starting point.
Senator Keon: Ms. Coombs, your second point was that there must be development of sound regulations stemming from the new act, and you went on to say that it would be necessary to create new regulations with the participation of all stakeholders, under the guidance of the federal regulatory process.
Are you talking about a whole new set of regulations or a tweaking of what exists?
Ms. Coombs: We are also looking at what currently needs to be changed, because there is a pile of regulations that will need to be modified, but there will be new regulations, on such issues as adverse reporting, that will need to be taken into consideration. The Pest Management Advisory Council has promised that that consultation will happen before anything is published in the Canada Gazette, and we are hopeful that that will happen.
Senator Keon: What do you mean by a ``more transparent registration system''?
Ms. Coombs: Do you mean in terms of the new bill?
Senator Keon: Yes.
Ms. Coombs: It is clearly stated in the bill that children's health is taken into account, and that is key. Previously, the public would have to look through a regulatory directive to find that.
As well, if Canadians wish, the reading room will be available for them to see the data submitted to the PMRA and the rigour of the science that is used to evaluate these products. These are key items in the proposed legislation that will help with that.
Senator Keon: To extend that, you also made a point about the importance of public education associated with the bill. Do you think there should have been something in the bill about consumer information, or can that occur through some other process?
Ms. Coombs: The challenges that CCSPA member companies face stem from the fact that consumers use our products. There is a heightened awareness at the municipal level about these products, as well as at the provincial level. We have become aware of a gap between the strength of the regulatory system currently in place and communication about that process. We believe it to be quite stringent and we would like that to be articulated. The new bill provides the Canadian government with an opportunity to do so, and we hope they will maximize that opportunity.
Senator Keon: What would be wrong with your organization doing that education and communication?
Ms. Coombs: We can certainly reference information about the bill; however, that would lead to an unfortunate situation of industry saying that that is what the government does; it is not the government itself articulating that message.
Senator Keon: It is a credibility problem, is it?
The Deputy Chairman: There would probably be an accusation of conflict. I was going to follow up with a question like that, because you say that the CCSPA needs a fair and transparent process for Health Canada's Healthy Lawn Strategy. Before we started today, I admitted to you that I too had succumbed to the hysteria and misinformation about the Healthy Lawn Strategy. Do you feel that is addressed in this bill? How does your industry deal with that?
Is this hysteria or misinformation? Are people taking decisions that perhaps are not based on sound science?
Ms. Coombs: First, I would like to thank you on behalf of member companies for buying our products.
We feel that there is a lot of hysteria. Registration is a rigorous process, based on sound science and weight of evidence. Numerous data are submitted to the PMRA prior to the registration of the products.
We believe that the products are safe if used according to the label directions. It has been a tumultuous two years, with various municipalities wanting to be proactive and take some initiatives, through bylaws, to reduce the use of pesticides.
Again, I think the registration system speaks for itself. We are hopeful that the new bill will alleviate some of the concerns that have arisen among Canadians from misinformation that has been put out by a few, because our data shows that they do have a high degree of confidence that the products are regulated and safe to use.
The Chairman: I take the opportunity to thank our witnesses for appearing on this very important piece of proposed legislation.
The committee adjourned.