HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 8, 2002

¹

1540

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

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

¹

1545

The Chair

¹

1550

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed (Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

Mr. John Reed

¹

1555

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Reg Alcock

º

1600

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

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

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

º

1605

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche , Lib.)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

º

1610

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Austin Leavey (President, Association québécoise de la gestion parasitaire)

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Dean Thomson (Chairman, Crop, Plant Protection and Environment Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council)

º

1625

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Ken Plews (Past Co-Chairman, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides)

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Don McCabe (Chairman, Environment Committee, Grain Growers of Canada)

º

1640

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Stephen King (Manager--Senior Advisor, Parks and Natural Areas, Halifax Regional Municipality)

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Mark Goodwin (Pest Management Coordinator, Pulse Canada)

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

»

1700

Mr. Austin Leavey

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Rob Merrifield

»

1705

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Mark Goodwin

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Mark Goodwin

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Don McCabe

»

1710

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Don McCabe

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Mr. Stephen King

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Stephen King

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

»

1715

Mr. Austin Leavey

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Austin Leavey

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Don McCabe

»

1720

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Ken Plews

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Ken Plews

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Dean Thomson

The Chair

Mrs. Skelton

»

1725

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Dean Thomson

Ms. Carol Skelton

Mr. Mark Goodwin

Ms. Carol Skelton

Mr. Dean Thomson

Ms. Carol Skelton

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

»

1730

Mr. Austin Leavey

Mr. Dean Thomson

The Chair

Mr. Dean Thomson

»

1735

The Chair

Mr. Austin Leavey

The Chair

Mr. Don McCabe

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 077

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 8, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

    You will notice on your amended agenda that the first witnesses, from the Office of the Auditor General, are the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and from the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. These people have asked if they could make their presentation and have questions in the first half hour before the others come to the table.

    If it is agreeable to everyone, I'll introduce Madam Johanne Gélinas, the environment commissioner, and ask her to perhaps explain to us what it is she does.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    Very briefly, I am the green watchdog of the federal government, and I'm part of the Office of the Auditor General. With me today is John Reed, the principal responsible for our work on toxic substances.

    This afternoon I would like to make some brief introductory remarks, and then I would be pleased to answer your questions.

    My remarks today are based on the findings of an audit report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled in Parliament in May 1999. By way of background, that audit, reported in two separate but related chapters, examined the federal government's assessment and management of existing toxic substances. Chapter 3, “Understanding the Risks from Toxic Substances: Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House”, focused on the gathering of scientific information and its use by government in deciding which substances pose risks to human health and environmental quality. Chapter 4, “Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress”, reviewed actions taken by the government to deal with the risks posed by toxic substances.

    This was a major and complex audit, one that covered a great deal of territory across the federal landscape and involved six departments. Our findings identified poor interdepartmental coordination of research efforts, incomplete environmental monitoring networks, slow progress in meeting stated commitments, a lack of re-evaluation of pesticides against new health and environmental standards, and a growing gap between the demands placed upon departments and the availability of resources to meet those demands. These add up to a serious problem. Overall, the audit concluded that the government's ability to detect, understand, and prevent the harmful effects of such substances was seriously threatened.

    Although the audit looked at many types of toxic substances, including industrial chemicals managed through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I will focus the balance of my remarks only on the sections that dealt with pesticides. I would like to very briefly highlight four major areas of concern raised in the audit.

[Translation]

    The first concerned the disturbing lack of cooperation and sharing of information between the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and the departments that undertake scientific research such as Health Canada, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. Research and monitoring are essential to understand the presence and impact of pesticides in Canada and to support informed decision-making. But generating good information is a moot point if it is not used effectively. At the time of the audit, the PMRA had developed a reputation as a "closed shop" and was perceived as not welcoming input from other federal departments. In addition, the PMRA did not share information in its possession, arguing that existing legislation prevented this.

    Second, the audit raised serious concerns about the lack of re-evaluations and special reviews of existing pesticides. Many pesticides used today were approved when standards were much less stringent than they are today. At the time of the audit, of the 500 active ingredients contained in registered pesticides, over 300 were approved before 1981 and over 150 before 1960. And yet, despite long-standing commitments to re-evaluate these pesticides against modern standards, the government's track record was alarmingly poor. In addition, the audit found the ground rules for conducting re-evaluations and "special reviews" were unclear.

    The third key concern addressed in our audit was the absence of a pesticide risk reduction policy and strategic game plan with the PMRA. Risk reduction in this context refers to activities aimed at reducing overall risks to people and the environment, including reductions in use of pesticides and measures to encourage adoption of safer alternatives or lower-risk pesticides. Governments world-wide have specifically enacted such policies and programs. The Canadian government even directed the PMRA upon its formation to develop a risk reduction policy. The audit found it had not done so.

    The last area of concern raised was the inadequate tracking of toxic releases in pesticides. The audit noted the lack of a national data base on pesticide sales, despite explicit direction and previous commitments to establish one. Measurement is fundamental to good management and without such data Canada simply does not know much about the types and amounts of pesticides released into the environment. This undermines the government's ability to gauge the effectiveness of risk reduction efforts.

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    Madam Chair, the 1999 audit made 27 recommendations to departments, including many to the PMRA, to address the deficiencies we found. They agreed to take action. We have attached a list of these recommendations as an appendix to this statement. As part of our normal audit procedure, we are currently conducting a follow-up audit to determine what progress departments have made since then. We will be reporting this work to Parliament in October of this year.

    Although we fully recognize that the issue of toxic substances and pesticides is complex, for the many reasons cited in our chapters, I am not convinced that the problems we identified are rooted in the complexity of the issues. On the contrary, many of the weaknesses we identified have an all-too-familiar human ring to them. In my view, they are very solvable by applying the fundamentals of good management; by taking action towards commitments and policies; by developing clear working relationships, roles, and accountabilities; by reconciling competing mandates and compartmentalized thinking; and by building effective performance measurement.

    That said, I think effective legislation will be key to addressing some of the issues confronting the government and the PMRA. Key areas in this regard include provision for reporting and information-sharing, requirements for conducting re-evaluations and special reviews, and establishment of a national sales database.

[Translation]

    In conclusion, Madam Chair, the main message in the May 1999 report was that there was a substantial gap between talk and action on the federal government's environmental and sustainable development agenda. I believe this is still the case today and we are paying the price in terms of our health, environment, standard of living and legacy to our children and grandchildren.

    I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Gélinas.

    We'll move to the questioning, starting with Mr. Merrifield.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank you for coming. You've certainly put your finger on some of the things we've been suspecting as we've gone through this whole process.

    When we ask the PMRA why there's such a perception of problems with their performance, obviously money comes up. You've pointed to a lot of solutions that relate to what you see as problems, none of which are money. Can you tell me if you see a resource problem, a funding problem, with PMRA, or is it management?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We have said that there were some resource issues, but of course that wasn't all.

    If I may, I'll ask my colleague to add to that with respect to the re-evaluation of pesticides. It was clear in our minds that there was a funding issue there, but that was not all.

    Mr. John Reed (Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I think part of the reason we don't comment on the sufficiency of resources is that generally that's something the Auditor General doesn't do. It's considered a policy issue as it relates to the prerogative of government to allocate funds.

    I can tell you that in the chapter and specifically around issues of re-evaluation, when the PMRA was formed, a portion of its revenue was to come from cost recovery. At the time of the audit, cost recovery was not producing the revenues the agency had forecast, and they took the position that a shortfall of about $4.5 million was one of the reasons precluding them from moving forward with their re-evaluation program.

    Just to underscore the comment of the commissioner, I agree that it's more than resources. Specifically around re-evaluation, this is an issue that has been on the agenda for at least 16 years, from when the Department of Agriculture had responsibility for re-evaluation. Plans were put in place in 1986, and still no re-evaluations were undertaken. At no time did the issue of resources come up as an issue for that, so it's certainly broader than resources.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: The PMRA suggested before this committee that 400 active ingredients need to be re-evaluated at the present time, and that this would be completed before 2006; I believe that was their timeline. From your perspective, from what you saw in the agency, is that achievable ?

    Mr. John Reed: All I can tell you is that we had several case studies in the chapters that looked at some of the re-evaluations. One in particular had been under way for almost 20 years at the close of our audit. There was a special review--and these were not just fringe examples, these were mainstream re-evaluations under way--that had taken in the order of eight or nine years. Neither had been completed yet, so I guess it would seem a challenge to do that number of re-evaluations in four years.

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I'm a little intrigued by this. You say in this report that you collectively were spending about $100 million a year on these studies, yet you say here that part of the problem is due to a reduction in government funding, that the level of funding has been reduced, and that this will impair the ability of organizations to do the research necessary. I'm a little confused by your remark to the effect that the $100 million you are now spending is not sufficient to do the task that needs to be done. Are you saying the $100 million needs to be reorganized and refocused in some way?

    Mr. John Reed: First of all, the $100-million figure was an aggregated figure for all the substances we were looking at. It was not just for toxic substances, it was for a range of activities. Those were figures we didn't audit--they were provided by the departments--partly because they don't really collect the information in a way that would even let us answer that question.

    What we were facing was clearly a situation where in the mid-1990s, as program review occurred, budgets that had been higher prior to 1997 were reduced. At the same time there was a series of demands being placed on the departments that were going to grow the need for research and monitoring. The undercurrent or theme of the report was clearly that departments were facing a future of increasing demands for scientific research and monitoring at a time when budgets had been reduced.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes, $100 million isn't chump change. This is a substantial amount of money. Is it that it is poorly allocated? Are the systems for evaluating risk poorly structured? Is it too thinly spread?

    You also talk about the problems of coordination and communication between departments. Is it that the current structures are inadequate to properly meet the task, or is it simply that there are insufficient funds?

    Mr. John Reed: Well, we didn't really approach the question in the way you're posing it, so we didn't try to answer the question in the sense of, is this sufficient or not? We didn't do that kind of audit work.

    That said, I think the audit did address the issue of coordination across departments and whether they were really marching to the same drummer, setting clear priorities for the government as a whole and coordinating their work. But we really didn't try to get to the question you're posing, whether it was money well spent or not.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: It didn't prevent you from mentioning it. I don't know whether you're just being excessively cautious here. Just among us chickens, does this thing need to be reorganized in some fashion that will make more effective use of those resources?

    You do mention a wide range of departments that are involved in attempting to do work in this area of toxicity, yes, in certain different spheres, but would it be a more efficient or better use of those resources to more strongly focus them on the departments that are able to deliver that sort of thing?

    Some of the stuff in here is rather surprising. You have a thing here about some.... What is this stuff called...? Oh, no, that's something else.

    God, this is an awful report to read. There's all this about nasty stuff killing people all over the place.

    Mr. John Reed: Don't shoot the messenger.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Reg Alcock: No, I'm not talking about you.

    Here you identify the concern when in 1987 the Canadian Wildlife Service said that this carbofuran was killing birds, yet it took 13 years to get it off the market. That doesn't strike me as the kind of critical response time that would be adequate for something that has been determined to be dangerous to people's health.

    Now, is that a coordination problem because there are too many actors in the mix trying to make the decision? Is it a lack of resources in terms of their ability to act on information that gets raised with them? Those are things we need to sort out. Making a small change to this legislation may not be adequate.

    Mr. John Reed: It's a function of a lot of things. The carbofuran was one example. It didn't even set a record. I mention other re-evaluations that took up around 20 years.

    At no time did the issue of resources really come up as impeding those re-evaluations. I think there was a choice the agency and its predecessors had to make--namely, where would they spend the resources they had?

    But it really isn't the issue, especially around re-examinations and special reviews. There was such a lack of a defined process that nobody really knew the game plan, the points where they could provide information, or who was actually making the decision. In the middle of the 1990s the PMRA was formed, consolidating functions that were previously distributed among four different departments.

    A host of things conspired to slow it down, but it's partly that it's an open-ended process. There's no requirement to complete the reviews or the evaluations within a defined timeframe. It's a very discretionary process.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: In your opinion, does this legislation address those problems?

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We are not in a position to comment. We can report on what we audit. It's not in our mandate to--

    Mr. Reg Alcock: So you'll allow us to make a mistake so you can play “gotcha” with us. Why don't you give us a little help here?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Unfortunately, these are the kinds of questions we cannot answer.

    Mr. John Reed: I could give you two thoughts based on a lot of the experience we've had in this audit and many other audits. When timelines aren't imposed or when they're not imposed in a statutory way, the chances are they won't be met. We have a lot of experience that suggests discretionary items don't get done.

    The other thought is that we also have a lot of experience where policies and directives don't get implemented. If you want it to happen, our experience suggests legislating is a good way to deal with it to ensure that it happens and that resources follow to support the department.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. The first deals with the re-evaluation requirements, and the second with the risk reduction policy.

    Point 11 of our brief states:

...key areas in this regard include provisions for reporting and information sharing, requirements for conducting re-evaluations and special reviews, and the establishment of a national sales data base.

    In your view, then, the government needs to have requirements for conducting re-evaluations. Are you really saying that it would be best to set out in legislation a timetable for completing commitments and conducting re-evaluations? We know when work gets underway, but we never know when it is completed. Does point 11 mean that the government must set the requirements for re-evaluation, indicate a start and end date for them and put these things in the act?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Madam Chair, I will repeat some of what my colleague said in responding to the previous question. If we look at the audit, there seems no doubt that if there are no deadlines in place, the work tends to go on and on. One way to guarantee completion of the work would be to provide, in legislation or some other way, that any process that is implemented has a beginning and an end.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: How long should that completion period be, in your opinion? Should that period be defined?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Our audit did not deal with what a reasonable period would be.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have a question about the risk reduction policy. You mentioned that the PMRA clearly lacks a risk reduction policy and a strategic plan. Further along in your presentation, you said that a number of countries in the world have adopted such programs and policies.

    In your comparative studies, did you find that some countries had adopted policies that gave priority to the precautionary approach and policy?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Madam Chair, I will let my colleague, John Reed, answer that question.

[English]

    Mr. John Reed: I'm not sure if I know the answer to that, offhand. We didn't audit the various countries that have risk reduction strategies in place, but we did learn from some surveys done through the OECD, which did a comprehensive evaluation three or four years ago comparing various regimes. It was through that survey that a lot of information was provided around the nature of the programs. I don't know specifically, though, how they dealt with the issue of the precautionary approach.

    I'm sorry, but if you like, we could explore that for you and get back to you through the chair.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I may, Madam  Chair, I would like to add something. Our 1999 audit did not assess the use of the precautionary principle, although we did refer to it. I would point out, however, that the sustainable development approach and principles that Canada has committed to uphold clearly mention the precautionary principle.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: In your 1999 report, you indicate that the British government adopted the precautionary approach in 1985 regarding the use of these products and promoted a decrease in pesticide use. So, in principle, you did explore how the British approach implemented the precautionary principle.

    Do you believe that this bill contains provisions similar to what the British government brought in in 1985, since it is in your 1999 report?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No comparison can be made with how this legislation deals with the issue of the precautionary principle.

[English]

    John, you may want to add something.

    Mr. John Reed: Thank you.

    We did not look at legislation in other countries, so I don't know how it has been dealt with in a legislative sense. And maybe I was reading a little bit too much into your question, because I know that the issue of the precautionary principle has been raised in your hearings so far.

    I think you would find the word “precaution” in most of the risk reduction strategies in place in those countries, and they would clearly be founded on the need to take precautionary action and reduce the risks of pesticides. I guess I was reading a little bit too much into the question. I don't know whether they've taken the precautionary principle from the Rio declaration and specifically built a strategy around that.

    But I think you've heard in your own hearings that it's a very high-level principle that begs for specific application. We did mention in our original audit that, at that time, the government had not developed a consistent application for the principles, and that's probably still the case now.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras. It's Dr. Castonguay's turn.

     I have asked the witnesses to make their answers as succinct as possible, because time is slipping away and we're all getting nervous.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche , Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    You have presented us with a 1999 report. We are considering a piece of legislation. If I understand correctly, you are not able to say whether this bill seems to allay the concerns that you raised at that time. You talk about four main concerns raised in the audit, but you are not going to give us your opinion on whether this bill addressed those problems.

    Second, do you believe that including timetables can be a two-edged sword? Here is why I ask. Human nature being what it is, there is a tendency to try to meet the deadline by cutting corners in assessing products for approval.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Madam Chair, there are always pros and cons to setting a schedule or not doing so. It is impossible to judge the pros and cons of having a deadline. All that we can say is that experience over the years has shown that putting deadlines in place generally leads to work being initiated and carried out. It is not a sure thing, but having a deadline certainly helps.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: But it can still be a double-edged sword.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Like anything else.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: All right. You do not know whether the bill before us seems to address the concerns that were raised in 1999. You have no opinion on that.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: That is correct.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: We have time for a very short question from Mr. Merrifield and then a short question from Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, actually it's just a follow-up of the last question. We've heard about this whole area of timeliness and we've had many witnesses say that it should be part of the piece of legislation. And you wrestle with just what an appropriate time is, and how you judge whether it's effective enough. As you say, do we have enough time; are we going to skip some steps or not?

    My question to you then would be, since many witnesses also say we should perhaps be harmonizing some of the registration with the United States--our closest trading partner who impacts our agriculture and pesticides--is that an appropriate thing to be looking at as a guide?

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: My colleague will answer this question, Madam Chair.

    Mr. John Reed: Thank you.

    We didn't look at the issue of harmonization, but in a practical sense, I think, it makes sense to share. Probably Canadians would want to be sure that any specific Canadian information was built into that process to ensure that risks to Canadians were acceptable.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Alcock, very quickly, and Mr. Bigras has also a question.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Very quickly, the situation with the precautionary principle--how do you audit that? How do you audit compliance with something like that?

    Mr. John Reed: Good question, and I wish I had a good answer, because I think right now it's not auditable. It's a principle at a very high level. There's a fair amount of activity to try to make it operational. That really is a need there. Until that happens, it really is difficult to audit something at that level.

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have one short question, Madam  Chair.

    You talked about the principle of sustainable development and the Rio Convention. In order to ensure that Canada meets its international commitments, would it not be useful and even desirable to have the precautionary principle clearly set out in the preamble of the bill? I would ask you to respond to that question as commissioner and as an auditor, since your work is to ensure that Canada meets its international commitments. Would it be a good idea for the government to give priority to the precautionary principle in the preamble of this bill?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Madam Chair, given that a clear and firm commitment in this regard is set out in various federal government documents, I do not see why it could not be included the preamble of all new Canadian legislation dealing with environmental and sustainable development issues.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: On behalf of the committee, may I thank the witnesses, Mr. Reed and Madam Gélinas, for their presentation.

    Members of the committee, you received a memorandum from the clerk. It was e-mailed to everyone today, I guess. He's telling us that there's a team assigned to our committee that includes Doug Ward, who is a legislative counsel and who will be able to draft committee or report stage amendments. We'll also have with us Susan Baldwin, who is a legislative clerk, to see us through the clause-by-clause process. She is coming to our meeting on Thursday for the last half hour when we're discussing ideas around amendments. She'll be here to answer questions at that time.

    At the same time, she has informed us that she and her team need a certain amount of time to make sure any amendments are in the proper legislative language. She suggests that we have a deadline for submission. As Mr. Reed has suggested to us, you get action when you have a deadline.

    So the deadline for the submission of amendments is 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 16, which is eight days from now.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: When do we finish hearing witnesses?

    The Chair: Tomorrow.

    Then staff will prepare a package containing all proposed amendments, hopefully worded correctly, and have it ready for the meeting of May 21. That's the Tuesday after the holiday Monday.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: This is a bill, right?

    The Chair: Yes, it's a bill.

    Those are the two announcements. But the main one for your interest is that the deadline for the submission of amendments is 5 p.m. next Thursday.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, can you remind me when the last witness will appear before the committee?

    The Chair: Tomorrow.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Tomorrow. That is quite a tight schedule. I do not know whether the committee normally operates this way, but I feel that we are working with quite a tight schedule. Mr. Castonguay said at the last meeting that the schedule was very busy. I think that we need time to go over all the briefs in order to be able to come up with coherent amendments. The deadline seems very short. I wanted to mention that in passing.

º  (1615)  

[English]

    The Chair: Has the research staff with your party not been following the testimony? It would seem to me that's where your amendments might come from. Or do you usually prepare--

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: This is not a question of principle, in my opinion. We are parliamentarians. So I am the one making amendments and not the research staff. Is that clear?

    I admire the work done by the researchers, both those from my party and those from the Library, but I am the one who makes the amendments. I find that we are operating on a tight schedule. That is all I wanted to say.

[English]

    The Chair: Any other comments? Seeing none, we'll move on.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have six new witnesses at the table. We have Mr. Austin Leavey, Mr. Dean Thomson, Mr. Ken Plews, Mr. Don McCabe, Mr. Stephen King, and Mr. Mark Goodwin.

    Mr. Leavey, you have the floor.

[Translation]

    Mr. Austin Leavey (President, Association québécoise de la gestion parasitaire): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Before I start, I would like to thank you for having invited us to this meeting. We have provided you with a copy of the brief we tabled in January with the Quebec Department of the Environment.

    The issues we concentrated on regarding Bill C-53 are the subject of the six recommendations in the brief, which we feel are important. We feel that two of these recommendations are more specifically relevant to this new bill.

    The first point is to restrict the use of products, particularly concentrates or products intended for home use which we feel are a potential health risk for people and for the environment. People are asked to dilute concentrates themselves, which in our opinion they rarely do properly. Because people rarely take the time to read the labels, there is often overuse, or poor application which is harmful to health and to the environment.

    As regards transport, this same government considers most of these concentrated solutions as hazardous materials. Many of these products are class 9.2 products, and therefore are dangerous for the environment, and some are even class 6.1 products, which is to say they are toxic to human beings.

    As concerns class 9.2 products, which is one of the most widespread domestic concentrated pesticides, one need only spill a single litre into the environment in order to be obliged to file a dangerous occurrence report or an immediate report, under the provisions of the new legislation. This shows to what degree these concentrates pose a potential risk both to the environment and to public health. These products are readily available, and anyone can purchase them without any background information, because the retailers rarely have adequate training. This is the first issue I wanted to raise.

    The second point concerns the standardization of the regulations, which is the subject of our sixth recommendation. During your committee discussions on Bill C-53, the issue of maximum limits of residues has been raised, and special reviews that you might undertake, as well as public consultations that you introduce in your regulations.

    It is clear that you are giving back to the provinces the power to legislate certification and related issues. We have certain concerns as regards the municipal power to legislate regarding the use of pesticides. More and more often, we see municipalities preferring one pesticide over another or simply banishing, in whole or in part, the use of pesticides on their territory.

    In our opinion, municipalities do not have sufficient knowledge concerning pesticides, and they do not have all of the studies that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has in hand on the issue of public health, etc. Consequently, we feel that they are not in a position to set out adequate rules to protect the population. Moreover, when they banish all pesticides, they endanger their people. These are the two points we wanted to bring to your attention.

    You also mentioned, at the end, that it would be better to promote training. You should bear in mind that Quebec is seriously thinking of setting up a compulsory diploma for the certification of all pesticide users.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leavey.

    Could we ask now Mr. Dean Thomson to take the floor.

    Mr. Dean Thomson (Chairman, Crop, Plant Protection and Environment Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council): Good afternoon.

    I'm an apple grower from St. Paul d'Abbotsford in Quebec. I'm the chair of the Canadian Horticultural Council's crop protection committee. We're an organization representing basically horticultural producers involved in vegetable growing, fruit growing, ornamentals, and herb production across this country.

    We've been actively involved in the pesticide issue because it affects us greatly, people in horticulture being the main users of what we call the minor-use program that we have in place, and also the ones who need the access to all these so-called minor-use products as quickly as possible, and as quickly as our counterparts in the U.S. can get them.

    I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair, and the committee members, for the opportunity to address you here today as you further assess, develop, and fine-tune Bill C-53.

    I'd like to commend you on your attention to and consideration of this much-anticipated and all-important legislation. We appreciate the scope and the sincerity of the questions you have raised over the past number of weeks and share your obvious commitment to making the proposed legislation work for all Canadians.

[Translation]

    We have fervently been hoping for a standardization of pesticides with the United States since the signing of the Free Trade Agreement in 1988, and of NAFTA afterwards. We lost our customs tariff protection for seasonal fruits and vegetables, but in exchange, we had been promised the harmonization of access to pesticides with the United States. This has never materialized. We are still waiting.

    We hope for a harmonization of access, which is not the same thing as a uniform certification process, because we really need it.

[English]

    The process for registering pesticides is important. It is important to farmers, the public, and the Canadian economy. We rely on the agency responsible for the registration and regulation of these products for output. Timely output of new products that are safe, effective, and cost-efficient, and the same as those used by our global trading partners, is imperative.

    Just to refer to a point brought up by the Auditor General's report, when we talk risk reduction, at the Canadian Horticultural Council we've been talking for many years now about having access to these newer, lower-risk, safer chemistries. The point was made that right now we know that we are dragging behind, we have a lot of older chemistry that should be coming under evaluation, but we know that in a lot of cases there are replacement products available and new chemistry out there. We have to find a way to get this newer, safer chemistry through our system quicker so our growers can have access to it.

    We want--indeed, need--them to be approved by an agency that will forthrightly tell all Canadians and the world that they were approved by a science-based system. We want this public assurance on a regular basis so as to ensure public confidence in our commodities.

    In the United States alone, the horticultural industry has access to at least 160 more pesticides than we have, all of which are approved for use by the U.S. EPA, who are recognized as a world-class scientific body. Is it unreasonable for me to expect my government to provide an assessment program that can do the same job? We've been told by the PMRA for five years that we are open for business for joint reviews and other measures to improve efficiency. In terms of significant output, these initiatives have been a failure. Since 1997, only 10% of the U.S. registrations have been done jointly with the PMRA. This is a number we should be very concerned about.

    At least 10 to 15 new active ingredients per year are not even being submitted for registration in Canada. There are many underlying reasons for this, only one of which is the economic market factor.

º  (1625)  

[Translation]

    No matter what the proposed act contains, unless the responsible statutory agency can and will deliver on your earnest intentions, we will not be happy and the Canadian public will continue to be short changed.

[English]

    The PMRA needs to change. It must be user friendly, efficient, well-funded and -staffed. The staff must be empowered to do the job. The PMRA must have the ability to re-register existing products on time, keep up with new submissions, and find efficient ways to catch up on the 160 products that we are behind.

    In terms of the proposed act, we offer the following specific comments. Because we have such a variance of crops, none of them necessarily representing a huge amount by themselves, but on the whole a very important part of horticulture, our number one issue in horticulture is that there must be new deal for minor use in Canada. It starts with the recognition of the principle of minor use as a separate and defined item in the bill. Please refer to the attached definition of minor use for consideration.

    Another point is access to reduced-risk products. We are supportive of this initiative as it is stated in the bill.

    On re-registration, we are supportive of this initiative, as it should serve to reassure the public and us of the safety of these products.

    On transparency and accountability, this is a good policy direction. Please consider keeping the openness and access to data similar to the EPA policy so as to not give cause for companies to bypass Canada as a market for their products.

    On efficacy, surely if the goal is minimal, justified use, let the expert, the farmer, fine-tune the rates. The current process takes extra time, is expensive, and may be less efficient. I think what should be said here is that what we have seen for many years now is a definitely different way of using crop protection materials when you compare farmer and domestic use. I can definitely say, because I am a farmer and I also see domestic use with my girlfriend and family, that the tendency in domestic use is actually to put a little bit more, because then it will definitely work, and to look at the label and see it takes a little bit, but let's just make sure it works. With a farmer, it comes down very much to an economic basis. If companies are worried about one thing, they are always worried about farmers cutting doses, because farmers are going to cut as much as they can and go to the lowest rate possible, since it represents a huge cost for them over their growing season.

[Translation]

    In conclusion, we seek a commitment from you, as our elected officials, that our needs as Canadian farmers will be met through the proposed new act, including the follow-up regulations, and policies, directives and guidelines. We insist that the PMRA become responsive to the needs of its clients. We continue to fall further behind our competitors in crop-protection resources by 10 to 15 new products per year. This is unacceptable.

    Please enshrine the principle of minor use in the act's definitions and in section 7 to empower the minister to act upon minor use registration requests in the most expeditious manner possible.

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Just as a side note in conclusion, Madam Chair, we do understand that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is tabling its report on the PMRA in the House this afternoon. We do believe it will make a number of recommendations that will fall fairly in line with what we have been requesting--to see a change in the minor-use system registration process in Canada. We eagerly await seeing all these changes take place, because we do feel they are in the best interest of all Canadians.

    Thank you on behalf of all the horticultural producers of Canada.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thomson.

    We'll move on now to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides, with Mr. Ken Plews.

    Mr. Ken Plews (Past Co-Chairman, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides): Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. This submission is on behalf of the members of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides, known as the FPT committee, regarding the proposed amendments to the proposed federal Pest Control Products Act.

    The FPT committee has been established to improve the cooperation between federal, provincial, and territorial governments on programs, policy, information exchange, and harmonization in the areas of sustainable pest management and pesticides. As such, this organization recognizes that responsibility for management of these critical areas in Canada is a shared responsibility between constitutionally mandated jurisdictions.

    We believe federal regulation of pest control products is the most efficient and cost-effective means of providing uniform protection to all residents of Canada. Provincial-territorial legislation provides additional regulatory powers to take action based on regional conditions and concerns, particularly regarding the transportation, storage, sale, use, and disposal of these products. For example, provincial-territorial regulators may establish buffer zones to protect sensitive areas, as is done for mosquito adulticide in the city of Winnipeg.

    Last year a healthy lawns working group was established with the objective to reduce reliance of pesticide use for lawn care through the application of integrated pest management principles, with particular emphasis on pest prevention, use of reduced risk products, and application of pesticides only when necessary. Additional FPT working groups have focused on implementing a national pesticide classification system for Canada; updating a national sales database; revising pesticide education, training, and certification programs; and evaluating methods of determining buffer zones.

    In many cases, the use of provincial-territorial regulatory powers serves to ensure that limitations imposed at the federal level will be adhered to--for example, by requiring applicators to obtain pesticide use permits before being allowed to engage in certain types of applications, such as aerial application. Provinces and territories also have the prerogative to impose restrictions, such that risks posed would be lower than those considered acceptable by the federal government.

    In addition, provinces and territories, through their training and certification programs, ensure that users of pest control products are capable of complying with both federal and provincial-territorial requirements. It should be noted that some provinces have granted regulatory authority to urban and rural municipalities to enact bylaws to further restrict pesticide use within their local jurisdictions.

    The FPT committee in its current and past deliberations has actively worked to establish Canada as a leader in environmentally sustainable pest management. To meet this goal, we have long recognized that there are deficiencies and outdated provisions in the existing legislation, both at the federal and the provincial-territorial levels, that must be addressed. With this in mind, provincial-territorial members have worked with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in its present and previous forms on areas of programs that could be improved and harmonized if the enabling legislation were revised.

    Having worked on these issues for numerous years as partners and co-regulators, we have received and analysed input from various stakeholders, such as pesticide manufacturers and the distributors, producer organizations, as well as the health and environmental sectors. The provinces and territories anticipate significant benefits arising from the new act, including an increased confidence in federal registration decisions, more opportunities to influence registration decisions, access to information supporting registration decisions, easier access to safety information, and possible flexible regulations such as using lower labour rates and more effective collaboration in compliance and enforcement.

    In regard to particular areas of concern, provincial members believe that minor uses of pesticides are instrumental in reducing risks and implementing sustainable pest management and are crucial to achieve provincial crop diversification and resource management goals. We would welcome some additional recognition of minor use, including some improved data-sharing generation and additional funding to enable Canadian producers to compete with their American neighbours.

º  (1635)  

    Provinces are also concerned with the concept of review triggers and would hope that these would not be used as a method to obstruct or delay the normal registration processes.

    Finally, provinces are concerned about the additional demands and resources that may be required by this new act.

    We believe it's time for the federal government to carry through with the proposed changes, and we support the objectives of Bill C-53, the proposed Pest Control Products Act, 2002. We also believe a major impact of any legislation lies with the actual regulations that interpret and apply the act, and therefore we believe it's prudent to proceed with the legislation and apply ourselves to ensure that the developing regulations meet Canada's needs for both co-regulators and stakeholders.

    I have attached a fact sheet on the terms of reference for our committee, as well as a fact sheet on how pesticides are currently regulated in Canada, for those who are interested

    Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this submission to your committee.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Plews.

    Could we now hear from Mr. Don McCabe of the Grain Growers of Canada.

    Mr. Don McCabe (Chairman, Environment Committee, Grain Growers of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee.

    Just for the record, I was able to present to you on April 23. That day I was representing an organization known as AGCare; I do not have an identical twin. Fortunately, it's raining in southwestern Ontario enough so I can be here today to represent the Grain Growers of Canada, where I am chair of the environment committee.

    The Grain Growers of Canada is the only national organization dedicated to representing grain producers. Its membership brings together the producers of major grains and oilseeds--that is, wheat, barley, corn, canola, soybeans--from the various commodity organizations to develop common policy directions for national and international discussions. More than 80,000 grain and oilseed farmers are represented through the efforts of the Grain Growers of Canada.

    I would also emphasize that on most farms in the country, unless they are strictly horticultural, and even if there's livestock involved, there's probably some grain involved in the farm operation. Their combined contribution to the agrifood economy is very substantial, with a gate value of products at $10 billion per year.

    All grain and oilseed producers support the need for an environmentally sustainable and economically viable industry offering opportunity to future generations of Canadians for a safe food supply and clean environment. Efforts to enhance the safety and sustainability of the industry can be seen in, for instance, efforts to reduce on-farm pesticide use. In the province of Ontario alone, pesticide use as measured by active ingredients has been reduced by 40.7% since 1983. Reductions have been achieved in other provinces as well. The reduced environmental load resulting from these changes is augmented by increased human health and safety through reduced exposure limits and risks for applicators and others.

    The Grain Growers of Canada supports the government's vision in Bill C-53 for enhanced protection of human health and the environment through a scientifically based regulatory system. This includes support for further pesticide risk reduction through registration of lower-risk products. Such products offer new solutions for reducing exposure from all sources to human health, afford special protection to infants and children, and enhance the competitive status of producers while promoting an added awareness among the public of the registration process.

    Members of the Grain Growers of Canada support the innovation and research needed to achieve these objectives, which can enhance environmental stewardship in Canada's cultivated land base. However, the legislation does not allow for the full enactment of its goals in its current state. Issues of concern to the Grain Growers of Canada are the access to safer--safer for both health and the environment--active ingredients for pesticides, and proper stakeholder involvement in the process.

    The first issue we'd like to discuss is harmonization. Subclause 17(2) of the bill says, paraphrased, that if any OECD country chooses to prohibit the use of an active ingredient in their country, the minister shall automatically initiate a review of that ingredient here. This subclause could prevent Canadian producers from achieving or maintaining access to safer pest control products by pertaining to environments that do not represent that particular OECD country's conditions.

    As well, if an OECD country's action can result in the removal of an active ingredient, it should hold equally true that approval of an active ingredient in an OECD country should trigger automatic consideration of registration of that ingredient in Canada.

    Then there's clause 67. Currently the United States has many more active ingredients available to growers for pest control on crops. As a result, U.S. growers have an increased competitive edge as well as a greater environmental edge than do Canadian producers.

    As presently drafted, Bill C-53 has no tools available to ensure harmonization of Canada's pest control legislation to our major trading partners' through appropriate development of international standards. Therefore, under this clause of the bill, the opportunity exists for greater alignment with international standards allowing for a more competitive marketplace for Canadian farmers without compromise to our health and safety standards.

    Transparency concerns in relation to competitive access is the second area we'd like to address. Bill C-53 allows for unparalleled access to detailed information on pesticide data and evaluations. As well, special reviews by the minister can be requested by members of the public.

º  (1640)  

The Grain Growers of Canada has concerns regarding provisions that could enable individuals to overburden the scientific regulatory process through a request for special reviews that may have little or no scientific justification.

    The PMRA's job is to have qualified individuals to ensure proper interpretation of data and to ensure that reports are complete and accurate for the necessary third party to review on behalf of the Canadian public. Therefore, comparable measures to those used by the United States would be in order to cover both the needs of the public and those of business to allow competitive access of safer products for Canadian growers while ensuring public safety.

    The third area is the burden of persuasion and consideration of information. With regard to subclause 19(4), the Grain Growers of Canada agrees that information regarding the risk and value of other pest control products that are registered for the same use should be taken into account when considering the fate of an active ingredient in their review. However, this opens the door for the appropriate definition of value and necessary access to numerous products that offer the same use but do so in different modes of action. Therefore, clarification is necessary to avoid removing overactive ingredients before safer, newer actives are available, such as currently is the case with the expected removal of lindane for corn seed treatment, while opportunities for innovative pest management strategies involving pesticide rotation are being limited.

    In the area of minor-use concerns, currently in Canada minor-use registration is not meeting the needs of our agricultural producers. With no direct solutions being offered in Bill C-53 to overcome the limitations imposed on grain and oilseed producers as a whole, or between regions of the country, this area requires immediate attention. The registration of new, safer active ingredients for the Canadian market is a costly venture for companies when our total pesticide usage is only 3% of the global demand. Minor use is a much smaller portion of this already small market. Therefore, greater harmonization of PMRA activities with those of U.S. EPA could help address this growing concern on a national scale.

    Within our borders, greater attention needs to be paid to access across regions to avoid unnecessary cost for registration of products for minor use, when there are proved uses with supporting data from similar areas. Some products are needed on such a limited scale and timing due to unforeseen environmental and pest conditions--for example, if you see an outbreak in a given region. The request for greater harmonization of the EPA and PMRA in these areas of minor use is warranted. These types of outbreaks are not only costly to producers economically but can also result in undue food safety concerns for the general public, therefore substantiating the need for quick access through increased cooperation and harmonization.

    Finally, the area of stakeholder input. As outlined above, Bill C-53 has a direct impact on the ability of Canada's grain and oilseed farmers to compete economically while maintaining their environmental stewardship on behalf of all Canadians. Therefore, the Grain Growers of Canada requests that the minister establish a stakeholders committee to encompass the needs of all on this issue. This committee would not only advise the minister on new directions but would also ensure better communications on all issues of the current regulatory system and the enabling measures of Bill C-53.

    In closing, the Grain Growers of Canada congratulates the government on its review of the Pest Control Products Act. We look forward to a proactive approach and participation in addressing the needs of all Canadians on pesticide issues. Such needs include measures that will improve upon the health and environment for society as a whole while maintaining or enhancing the economic viability of Canadian producers and major products of wheat, barley, canola, corn, and soybean.

    Thank you very much for your time today.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCabe.

    We'll now hear from Mr. Stephen King of the Halifax Regional Municipality.

    Mr. Stephen King (Manager--Senior Advisor, Parks and Natural Areas, Halifax Regional Municipality): Madam Chairperson, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, it's certainly an honour for me to come up here from Halifax to tell you a little bit about some of the things we are doing in our city.

    My name is Stephen King. I'm the manager-senior advisor for parks and natural areas with Halifax Regional Municipality. Just quickly, my job involves senior-level strategic and sustainable resource management and policy. This includes managing the implementation of Halifax Regional Municipality bylaw P-800, respecting the regulation of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides, and our related public information and awareness programs on sustainable gardening and landscape maintenance, including sustainable alternatives to pesticides.

    I'm a professional landscape horticulturist and parks manager by trade. I have been in the business for probably close to three decades, in both the private and public sectors. I have been involved in the senior level of managers and superintendents with municipal parks for more than 20 years. So I have a fairly good understanding of our industry.

    Today I'm pleased to share with the committee a brief overview of our pesticide-use reduction initiatives in Halifax, and what can be accomplished, and to share some thoughts on what we think can be federal legislative tools that will be very helpful at the local level.

    We have submitted a separate document entitled “The 2001 Overview of Halifax Regional Municipality Pesticide Bylaw P-800”. I'm not sure if it has been translated or not. If it hasn't, I understand it will be and will be circulated. It is basically a 17-page summary of the roll-out of our pesticide reduction initiatives in Halifax. Perhaps I'll just leave that right there.

    Halifax Regional Municipality is presently in year three of a four-year phased-in pesticide ban affecting residential use properties and properties owned by the municipalities. It does not include agriculture. It does not include forestry or golf courses, etc. Overall it appears to be going quite well, to date. We are in year three of the four-year rollout.

    Efforts to date show there are operational cost-effective alternatives to cosmetic-use pesticides, and these alternatives are working. There's no single cure or product but rather a formula that includes such things as sufficient healthy soil, proper and sustainable maintenance vigilance, diversity in the landscape, hardy varieties of grasses, trees, and plants, and less toxic natural pest-control products when required, such as insecticidal soaps, biological control organisms, sticky traps, etc.

    Our parks system has not in fact used synthetic pesticides for many years, having initiated sustainable maintenance practices that include our greenhouse operations, our parks, our street tree programs, and other related facilities. We believe sustainable maintenance practices help to provide healthy and more durable and usable landscapes.

    The internationally famous Halifax Public Gardens, considered to be one of the finest examples of the surviving Victorian garden in all of North America, has been sustainably maintained for many years. We've not used any synthetic products in there for a long time.

    We're also pleased to advise that the Department of National Defence has initiated environmental directive ED4003-4/02, which is a directive to eliminate the use of pesticides for cosmetic lawn care purposes on all DND properties. It states that, effective March 31, 2002, the application on DND lands of cosmetic lawn care pesticides has been prohibited within 50 metres of schools, daycare centres, parks, playgrounds, churches, and hospitals. By April 1, 2003, the restrictions will extend to all DND properties. We're very pleased that Canadian Forces Base Halifax has already fully implemented all of these conditions. This parallels what we have done with the municipality.

    In our region, there appears to be considerable public support for the reduction of cosmetic-use pesticides. Residents are very interested in learning more about cost-effective, sustainable alternatives to pesticides. We find sustainable landscape maintenance is cost-effective, can be reasonably carried out, and does work. At the end of the day everybody benefits.

    Our second point is simply that the reduction of cosmetic-use pesticides for human health and environmental reasons is not just a local matter but rather a nationwide concern. Therefore, it would appear that for better overall consistency, public protection, understanding, and environmental sustainability, that any proposed federal legislation regarding this matter be more encompassing toward the reduction of cosmetic use pesticides for all of Canada.

    In keeping with the precautionary principle, we believe the default rule for federal legislation should be to limit cosmetic-use pesticides. Remedies could be put in place for serious insect or disease problems as well as special conditions for pest problems that could have a serious impact on human health should all other sustainable practices not be sufficient in a timely manner. Further, a phased-in system could be put in place with predetermined, reasonable deadlines to allow citizens and industry time to adjust.

    In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to tell you a little bit about what we are doing in Halifax.

    Thank you.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. King.

    Our last speaker is from Pulse Canada, Mr. Mark Goodwin.

    Mr. Mark Goodwin (Pest Management Coordinator, Pulse Canada): On behalf of Pulse Canada and the pulse growers of Canada, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-53.

    By way of introduction, pulse growers grow peas, beans, lentils, and chickpeas. These are foods that the average Canadian is familiar with, but what they may not realize is that these are wonderful crops on the land. We sell them to 70 countries around the world. Here at home, the very act of including them in the crop rotation has very positive effects on the environment and on the soil. It increases soil quality and adds nutrients to it. Everybody in the country wins when farmers can grow pulse crops.

    This bill will have a deep and lasting impact on pulse crops. At the outset, I want to say that we're very supportive of the transparency, the accountability, and the attention to public safety that the bill provides. We also support the attempts to harmonize the registration process with the U.S. But there are some trends in agriculture that we'd like to highlight, because they'll soon collide with the intents of this bill. That could derail some of the advances that have been made in sustainable agriculture, specifically in the pulse area.

    There are three points we'd like to make.

    First, over the last seven years the life sciences companies have consolidated to the point where less than half of them are left, and they are giants. These very large companies make economic decisions on the viability of registering new technologies based on large crops, like rice, wheat, and corn. Even though we in Canada see our pulse industry as vibrant and growing at 6 million acres, this is a minor crop to the life sciences companies.

    Therefore, we need this bill to clearly define a minor-use clause and to define one that does not orphan the pulse industry. Such a clause needs to allow room for technological tools to be registered in pulse crops as a minor crop. Such a process would allow growers' associations to work with life sciences companies in identifying and expediting review processes that ensure that pulses are not orphaned.

    If I can be permitted, I'd like to point to one of the most exciting stories in agriculture today. That's the story of chickpeas in Saskatchewan.

    Over the last five years, Saskatchewan farmers have begun to grow this crop. The crop itself yields well in the dryer areas of Saskatchewan and offers a badly needed diversification opportunity for those growers. It's gone from being almost non-existent to covering 1.2 million acres in the province, in only five years. What's more, the crop is good for the soil and it allows soil micro-organisms to add nutrients to the land.

    Saskatchewan farmers have become a world-class, sought-after source of chickpeas around the world, yet this crop is in danger of being orphaned. Tools to keep crop diseases out of the crop are needed, but the fact that the crop is now successful may lead to its own demise. At 1.2 million acres, the crop may be at risk of being too large for what has been thought of as a minor use, but too small to get the attention of the life sciences companies. Unlike horticultural crops, where there is a big U.S. market to make the business case for the life sciences companies, the Americans are not really growing chickpea acres.

    I know it runs counterintuitive to common thought, but this is a case where safe and effective pesticide use allows us to leave a lighter footprint on the land and the environment.

    So here we have a great story of farmer innovation, of export revenues, and sustainable cropping in Saskatchewan, and we need tools for it. We need a minor-use clause in the bill that would recognize these challenges on this scale of crop.

    Secondly, we see harmonization with the U.S. registration system as being an important part of the future of managing pest issues in pulse crops. I'll echo Mr. Thomson's comments with regard to NAFTA harmonization and the need to harmonize the confidential business information portion with that of the U.S. so that they are in synchrony. We do not want to see the life sciences companies keeping technology out of Canada because of concerns that proprietary information will be made public in a way that's different from what it is in the U.S.

º  (1655)  

    Finally, we wish to encourage the transparencies and the efficiencies that we think may be coming in regard to PMRA. We would also like to see concrete measures taken to ensure this accountability over the long term. We note and support the idea as outlined in the Speller report of an ombudsman who would oversee PMRA to ensure that there is recourse where situations or disagreements or problems occur in this complex area of science and regulation.

    In closing, we too congratulate the government on moving this bill through.

    I thank you for your attention.

    The Chair: I thank you for being so clear with your positions.

    We have just a little more than half an hour left. Could I have an indication from members as to those who wish to ask questions, so I can then divide the time evenly among the questioners?

     No more than four questioners? In that case, there won't be anything more than the usual limit.

    We'll begin with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you all for coming.

    This has been an interesting study. We've had witnesses who've come from both extremes, from both sides of a perspective, but it's interesting that we have both sides saying some things in common. Number one, I have yet to hear anybody say anything good about PMRA. I've been looking for it, but it seems as if that's unanimous. It's also unanimous that safer, more efficient, higher-technology products are certainly wanted in a timely fashion. Whether it's through harmonization with the United States or more efficiencies with PMRA, that certainly seems to be a trend that we're hearing from both sides.

    But I am quite interested in the testimony today on the benefits, which, as we've gone through the witness list, we haven't heard an awful lot of. Mr. Leavey mentioned it in his presentation. We have a tremendous number of people who are very concerned with pesticides. I've yet to see a farmer who really likes pesticides. They're a tool that we use. We have to use them in an effective way but also a very safe way, but we use them for the benefit of not only industry but society as a whole.

    I wonder if you would want to go a little further into what you were saying with regard to the anti-virus and mosquitos and so on. Could you elaborate on anything more there in terms of benefits of pesticides?

»  (1700)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Austin Leavey: The pesticides that you are talking about against viruses, small insects and parasites or predators are little used for extermination purposes by domestic and commercial pest control services. They are slowly coming on the market. We are still using too many chemicals, synthetically derived products; there are still too many of those. There is room for improvement, and it is taking place gradually. There are many so-called “food baits” that considerably reduce the use of chemicals. There are a lot of pheromones which are traps targeting a very specific insect, but that is all there is for the moment.

    I want to come back to what our colleague said. There are delays in registering new products that the United States has been using for a long time. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for us to have access to them.

[English]

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I want to thank you for that. At least we're getting that perspective that the timeliness is very important when it comes to safety in this whole area.

    I'm also interested, Mr. McCabe, in the numbers of people that you represent. You say the Grain Growers of Canada organization represents 80,000 farmers, correct?

    Mr. Don McCabe: That's actually a low number. That would be strictly the farmers in Canada who get greater than 50% of their income strictly from grain and oilseeds. With regard to livestock producers, they will also have corn, or wheat, or barley being grown on their farms right now that they would use within the livestock operation, and therefore these operations would have to also involve pesticides.

    The twelve commodity groups that belong to the Grain Growers of Canada, if we go from coast to coast and in alphabetical order, are the Alberta Barley Commission, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Atlantic Grains Council, British Columbia Grain Producers Association, and Canadian Canola Growers Association. There's also--and excuse me for the failure of my grade 11 French--the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, Manitoba Corn Growers Association, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, Ontario Soybean Growers, Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, Western Barley Growers Association, and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

    They're all member of the Grain Growers of Canada, sir.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Do you have a number, just ballpark?

    Mr. Don McCabe: Of the total producers? Whatever came off the last census is the total number of farmers out there. There are roughly about 200,000 of us now.

    As you just mentioned in your last statement, we use pesticides as a tool. It's my economic livelihood that I'm making use of there, so the less I have to use, the better.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: One thing we're looking at in the legislation is the efficacy of it. Do you think that's necessary?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Don McCabe: I think efficacy measures are appropriate under a scientific regulatory approach, because from the company itself we're getting much more targeted molecules and smaller and smaller amounts.

    When I first started my farming career we were using larger volumes of active ingredient. Today I'm putting things like tea bags into the top of 500 gallons of water. I'm able to cover off the same acreage with a much lower environmental load because of that.

    I would love to have an initial database of efficacy to work from, and then I would also make use of that data to do research on my own farm, to work within the boundaries of infestation levels or whatever the case may be.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: In the United States, they don't have that in their piece of legislation, as I understand it. Is that one of the reasons why we're having a difficult time harmonizing?

    Mr. Don McCabe: I don't belive that's a direct measure. I think there'd be better folks to answer the exact reason why harmonization isn't occurring. But I can also tell you that without efficacy, and because of some of the measures we currently have within Canada, they've turned some wonderful spraying equipment into large Jell-O moulds by mixing the wrong things together.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Exactly.

    That's all.

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Can you tell me how much time I have?

[English]

    The Chair: The usual five minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: The witnesses complained that they did not have enough time for their presentations. I feel I do not have enough time for my questions.

    You talked a great deal about harmonizing our policies with those of the United States. I am in complete agreement with you on that. One of the things that Canada's environment commissioner noted was that we had no risk-reduction policy, whereas a number of other countries currently have such policies and programs. The United States, for example, has its environmental protection agency, which is responsible for an environmental pesticide management program that creates voluntary partnerships among users, growers and food processing companies with a view to finding safe solutions.

    In the context of harmonizing our policies with those of the Americans, do you think that we could set up—I do not know whether it already exists in Canada—such a program here?

[English]

    Mr. Mark Goodwin: Can I answer that?

    In June, just as an example, we're going to bring up American pulse growers, sit them around the table with Canadian pulse growers, and try to come up with some shared ideas on research not only for pesticides but also for integrated pest management and non-pesticide tools that we could share research on. We'll include processors, growers, researchers, and the life sciences companies.

    This is the kind of thing that could come out of the harmonization process.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Are we talking about a Canadian policy or program, or exchanges within a framework...?

[English]

    Mr. Mark Goodwin: We like to think we're on the leading edge of something that could go to other crops with crop profiles. So whether it's a mandated program or an extension education effort, I think that kind of activity is what we're looking for.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have one other short question, and then you can answer.

    Still on harmonization with the Americans, we know that the US Agriculture Department had set a national objective of having integrated pest management used on 75% of agricultural land in the US by the year 2000. That type of announcement was made in the past. I would like to know what you think about the possibility of having that kind of national policy or objective in Canada.

[English]

    Mr. Don McCabe: I believe in Canada we already have integrated pest management, because every producer who's still on the land is doing so in such dire economic straits that they have had to cut as many corners as possible. They're already looking at various timings, looking at minimizing the amount of pesticides used, and looking at a number of other methodologies.

    For the grain growers, for example, because of the strong overlap of crops between the two countries, we are very much sharing integrated pest management strategies. In Canada, we had already brought them over, by looking at European countries prior to this point, and we're attempting to make use of the strategies there for integrated pest management.

    The difficulty in using the European methodologies is that if you're going to bring the European methodologies, you'd better bring European safety nets with it so that we get paid for what we do. There wasn't the opportunity to recoup on what's necessary there.

    With direct reference to the U.S., the cart is finally catching up to the horse. I would suspect that U.S. growers are already far ahead on integrated pest management, again, because the bottom line for growers is to ensure that we get an economic return so that we can continue to give environmental benefit and societal help along the way here with a clean and clear food supply.

»  (1710)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: You are not necessarily looking at environmental harmonization. What you would really like to see is economic-trade conditions based on harmonized information, for example, but not necessarily environmental harmonization based on what the American agency can do.

    You mentioned Europe. What do you think about having financial incentives for farmers who decide to stop using pesticides, as is done in Switzerland, for example?

[English]

    Mr. Don McCabe: In that case, first of all, the government owes me a lot of money right now. The next issue, with regard to environmental versus economic standards, is that there isn't a clear line there.

    If we are able to reduce the footprint of pesticide use in this country, as was illustrated with just the example in Ontario alone, dropping 40.7% since 1983, which was pretty well 19 years ago, we have already seen an environmental drop; therefore, that's an economic improvement in someone's bottom line.

    What we're looking for when it comes to harmonization is a harmonization of the data, the scientific data, not economic or environmental limitations here. What we're looking for is harmonization of the scientific regulatory data to ensure that we're not losing out on opportunities to do our job even better.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    Madame Thibeault.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. King, you talked about the city of Halifax. Do I correctly assume that the city of Halifax has imposed a complete ban on the use of pesticides for esthetic purposes?

[English]

    Mr. Stephen King: Yes, we have. We are in year three of a four-year phased-in ban, and last year and this year are what we call the transition periods. Right now, it includes properties that have been registered for medical reasons, including parks, playgrounds, and other public properties. For any properties that are within 50 metres, there's a restriction.

    As of April 1, 2003, the full ban comes into effect on all residential property and all municipal property. It doesn't include agriculture, forestry, and so on.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Actually, with regard to the exclusion list, you said that golf courses were exempt. Why?

    About 15 years ago, I read in a golf magazine that the state of Florida, for instance, which has a golf course concentration of 1 course per 10 miles, was extremely concerned because the toxic products used on golf courses were leaching into the ground water. So why make an exception for golf courses?

[English]

    Mr. Stephen King: You raise two very good points regarding golf courses. First, the enabling legislation that we were granted from the Province of Nova Scotia was very specific to residential property and that of the municipality. Now, golf courses may be something in the future, but the enabling legislation didn't allow us to go to golf courses because of the commercial use, etc.

    In Atlantic Canada, and Nova Scotia in particular, the golf course industry has just released a new document on some things they are doing on their own to make golf courses more sustainable--reduce use of pesticides, runoffs, that type of thing. There's no question that some of the products that have been used over the years, particularly on the greens.... We think of some of the mercury products and stuff like that. They appear to be making some concerted efforts on their own as well. But the main reason was that the enabling legislation from the province didn't include golf courses.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: That's fairly surprising. You may be aware of the fact that in the greater Montreal area, some golf courses have decided to go ahead with the transition of their own free will, including the Royal Montreal, which is one of Canada's more prestigious courses.

    On a personal note, I cannot play golf anymore because every time I try, my hands react because of the pesticides, which are everywhere; I can't really hold my club anymore. But let's move on to another subject.

    Mr. Leavey, you have made recommendations with regard to the sale of pesticides to consumers. I have read your recommendations and wonder whether you are actually going far enough. If I have a neighbour who buys extremely toxic products at the neighbourhood flower seller's, I am not convinced that a) he will know how to use them and b) he will carefully read the instructions and follow them.

    Don't you feel that licensed companies should be authorized, as the case may be, to spread these toxic products only if it is truly necessary?

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Austin Leavey: Of course, that would be an excellent idea. In fact, that would be ideal. As it now stands, based on the statistics, the farm sector is the greatest user of pesticides, followed by household use. Households are the greatest consumers of pesticides in Canada. As for the poison control centre—unfortunately, I only have the figures for Quebec and I'm sorry I do not have other ones—it is estimated that 68% of pesticide poisoning cases happen at home. Therefore, it is clear that consumers must know how and when to use these products.

    Ideally, people should try to avoid, as much as possible, the use of concentrated products and buy ready-to-use products. Otherwise, if they want to use pesticides, they should get the job done by certified companies. Under a city of Montreal by-law, a homeowner may spread pesticides on his property, but not on that of his neighbour. This limits the risk of poisoning.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Do you think that the federal government should legislate a ban on non-essential pesticide use, including cosmetic use?

    Mr. Austin Leavey: That issue needs to be examined more closely. You have to be careful as to how you define “cosmetic”, to ensure that any ban would only apply to the cosmetic use of pesticides. If there is a ban, I think that the relevant authorities should be involved. In my view, that would be either the federal or the provincial government

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Thibeault.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd like to ask some general questions. The first is a follow-up on Madame Thibeault's questions about cosmetic use.

    On the issue of agricultural use, I don't think there's a lot of dispute about whether it is large-scale agriculture or minor-use. There are obviously the problems that you mentioned in terms of how the system operates and how chemicals are used and regulated. This issue of cosmetic use comes up over and over again. You guys know about this, you're living in this world. Are there problems from the perspective of agriculture with a ban on cosmetic use? Does it cause you any discomfort or concerns?

    Mr. Don McCabe: Speaking as an Ontario farmer, I have concerns in the future with the encroaching urbanization that is occurring and chewing up our land base at a rapid rate. We now have a massive influx of urbanites into the rural environment.

    In the fifties, sixties, and seventies they came out and realized they were in a farming community. Now they come out and they usually are a lawyer or they know one, and we have a problem on our hands.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Would you describe urbanites as pests?

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Don McCabe: Well, you've already legislated the appropriate control measures for some of those aspects, but we'll leave those for a separate set of hearings.

    The issues come from the cosmetic basis. I have direct concerns about how noxious weeds are going to get handled on some railroads if it's extended that far. How is it going to be handled in public rights of way with regard to hydro transmission lines or other areas like that? Someone who chooses to allow their dandelions to exist becomes a major pest for me to deal with and an economic cost for me to deal with in my farming operation.

    I can go with tillage, I can go with different herbicide controls, but I now have a whole new source, a bank of weed seed to deal with that could come from the encroachment of areas of urbanization.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Plews, you had mentioned mosquitoes in Winnipeg. Would you like to comment on this?

    Mr. Ken Plews: In what regard?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: A comprehensive ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides. The cosmetic value of mosquitoes has not yet been determined, but....

    Mr. Ken Plews: Before I answer that, Madam Chairman, I'd like to go on record as saying that we are a booster of the PMRA. Being a regulator in pesticides since 1974, I can assure you that we've made great strides with PMRA. Our communication between the provinces and the federal government has improved greatly, so we're not all harping on them.

    In regard to the term “cosmetic”, you must appreciate that our committee is made up of professionals, be it agrologists, engineers, biologists, foresters, etc., so we have to hang our hat on the science-based criteria and go to the risk-benefit type of determination.

    I don't know what else I can comment on in regard to these cosmetic things. It's a very tough term to deal with, because it means different things to different people.

    Mr. Dean Thomson: Perhaps I may say one thing on that. As far as the horticulture sector is concerned, we certainly would want to have some assurance that any decision that is made on commercial cosmetic use is based on sound scientific principles.

    I guess the concern with a lot of the things we see on a domestic level is that often emotions come into play. A lot of things come into play. We can think of an example of somewhere where we have a ban on 2,4-D or so forth for lawn use, and yet within 50 metres it is still allowed on an agricultural basis. There are many places where fields do come within that limit of any kind of small town.

    How is it dealt with? How are people informed as to why it is okay for them but not for me? That always gets to be the concern for people who have to go out and try to market their product. It doesn't take too much to get a story out that something is bad if all the information isn't correctly disseminated.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: So despite your concern about managing your girlfriend, you would not favour a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

    Mr. Dean Thomson: That I would not favour a ban? I wouldn't be in a position to say yes or no about that. Personally, I think I could probably live with it. I don't use any commercial domestic things on my lawn or anything. As far as my organization goes, we haven't adopted the necessary politic on that, because it doesn't necessarily touch us directly.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alcock.

    I still have two questioners. Mr. Bigras has a short one, and Mrs. Skelton hasn't had a turn yet.

    Mrs. Skelton, the floor is yours.

    Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): First of all, I'd like to talk to the three gentlemen involved in crop-raising--Mr. Thomson, Mr. McCabe, and Mr. Goodwin.

    Do you agree with me that the technology being used by most farmers today--for instance, the GPS, the soil-testing system--and the economic conditions in today's agriculture have really decreased the usage of chemicals, of pesticides?

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Don McCabe: I believe there's opportunity there to allow an even greater reduction in pesticides. For example, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association is doing research in the area of fertility levels that are applied to corn and how that impacts on weed species. They are therefore attempting to marry the two to get the most optimum rate of nitrogen that's there to grow the corn crop, but also to ensure that we're not having to compete or enhance a weed crop that's there.

    With regard to GPS on its own, I would relate it not to soil testing, per se, but more to yield monitors and what you're doing with the combine. You're going to highlight an area within the farm that you're on. Because of the nature of today's farming, the memory bank doesn't allow you to memorize that entire acreage that you may have to roam over, so those types of techniques definitely highlight areas where you may only have to use a small amount of a specific chemical to solve a problem.

    Mr. Dean Thomson: Perhaps I could make a personal comment from my experience as an apple grower. It's a well-known fact that we have to use a lot of pesticides to produce apples, because we're attacked by 30 or 40 insect pests and 10 to 15 disease pests. So they are there and they have to be controlled.

    I know since I've taken over my family farm in the last 15 years, I've probably cut out on our farm a good 40% of pesticide use. It's like losing weight,I guess; the first 10 pounds is easy and then it gets harder. I see now that we're encountering problems that perhaps we never saw before, because there was probably a certain amount of, I would say, overkill in the past. Now I think they're getting nearer that good line, because we do see more problems crop up, and it let's us know that we are now getting towards that limit where we're having to play on the line.

    What we are seeing is that technology is allowing us to move ahead with all sorts of different types of controls. As Mr. Leavey said, pheromone traps and all sorts of reproduction disruption and so forth are all things that are very exciting. I guess the frustration that comes in the horticultural sector right now, as has been stated here quite often, is knowing that there's now technology, whether it be.... And we can talk about registration problems not just for actual chemical pesticides, but even for things such as pheromones right now. We have had problems with actually registering them through PMRA.

    So we want to adopt as soon as possible all this new technology that we see being used south of us and in Europe, but that's where we're getting into problems of having access to go the extra mile.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Goodwin.

    Mr. Mark Goodwin: The biggest change is not in terms of technology in GPS; it's in the human resource. The growers who have survived the combined might of the treasuries of the EU and the U.S. know how to dial back on costs.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: And what we're finding in Saskatchewan this year with the drought is that there is a carry-over of chemicals. So farmers whose old farms have been soil-tested have had to really readjust.

    Lastly, do you think growing flowers on a commercial basis has a cosmetic use...? Does growing flowers on a commercial basis...? I got left a question here. Should the cosmetic use of pesticides be encompassed? Should you use the flowers?

    Do you understand what I'm asking here?

    Mr. Dean Thomson: I understand totally.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: Good.

    Mr. Dean Thomson: No, that's a very good society question, and one that's far beyond my capability to answer. I could only give you my personal opinion on it, which I'm not going to do.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Dean Thomson: That's something our society has to wrestle with, along with a number of other issues on this, because that is the question: Is it commercial or is it cosmetic, and how does society see it?

    It's a good question.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: That won't make Rob happy, but thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Skelton.

    Now another question from Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Leavey, to come back to the answer you gave Ms. Thibeault, I would like to know if, in your view, a ban on certain pesticides should be imposed by the federal or by the provincial government. I would like you to clarify your position. As far as I understand, generally speaking, the federal government is responsible for the marketing and certification of these products, whereas the provinces are responsible for the sale, use and distribution of those certified products.

    You said a little earlier that, in your opinion, municipalities do not have jurisdiction with regard to the regulation of pesticides. I tend to agree with you, but don't forget the ruling in the case involving the town of Hudson, which granted municipalities the right to make such by-laws. So now we have an unfortunate legal precedent.

    My question is the following: do you think that the problem could be solved by adopting your sixth recommendation, which calls for the standardization of regulations in Quebec through the implementation of what the Quebec policy group proposed, namely a pesticide management code which would fall under exclusively provincial jurisdiction?

»  (1730)  

    Mr. Austin Leavey: I agree with that idea. We feel that if the federal government is responsible for certification, monitoring and safety of a product, it should be up to the provinces to decide whether to ban or allow its use.

    So, if you give the provinces the power to control or monitor the use of these products through certification, training and so on, I think that's enough. In my view, it should not be up to a local government to decide whether or not you have the right to use a product, since they are often under the influence of interest groups which may push for one type of product over another. In fact, studies have been done elsewhere in Canada—outside of Hudson or Bay d'Urfee—which have banned the use of pesticides indoors and outdoors. But this has led to terrible problems.

    What happened is that people with problems due to fleas, lice or other insects which afflict humans cannot use pesticides in their municipality, since it banned their use. The town of Hudson banned the cosmetic use of pesticides. With the exception of cosmetic use, we feel that, in that type of situation, a municipality should not have the right to pass a by-law banning pesticides.

    Mr. Dean Thomson: I would like to add a few words. I wonder why this power was given to municipalities when it already existed at the federal level. It basically points to the fact that we don't trust our national agency. I find this situation very strange.

    Furthermore, if you limit the use of pesticides, you'll make it even harder to attract companies to Canada. Why would a company come here and spend a lot of money to certify a product when there is no guarantee that they will be able to sell it, since any municipality may eventually ban it? It just doesn't make sense. We need a policy which is consistent across the country.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    I was wondering, from your earlier presentation, Mr. Thomson, if in fact the reason that the municipalities seem to be taking the lead here is that the rules could be made congruent with their zoning bylaws.

    In other words, within the boundaries of one municipality there could be zoning for agricultural use, zoning for residential use, and zoning for things like golf courses. It would seem to me that they have the maps and the divisions to make those decisions as to what is allowable and what isn't. But if you had agricultural use impinging on a neighbourhood, the agricultural zoning would prevail and therefore allow the farmer to do what is necessary for his crop.

    Mr. Dean Thomson: I agree with that, but as somebody who has to market his product, the problem is not with the legislative part of it; once again, it's the pressure points that can be made by people saying that this is banned over here, but it's okay for them to use it, and now you're going to buy this.

    You see, this doesn't come down to any scientific, legislative, or any kind of opinion other than a public opinion whereby somebody believes that because it's bad there it has to be bad here. All it takes is for somebody to speak up. I've lived this many times in the apple business. They just have to speak up, and whether it's well-founded or not doesn't necessarily matter. If they have one little point to get in, then I have to worry about it.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong; I'm saying it's a concern I have to have.

»  (1735)  

    The Chair: So you're not too happy about the potential for flack. Then I would suggest you not go into this business of politics.

    Mr. Leavey wanted to comment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Austin Leavey: Thank you. I would also like to address that issue. At the local government level, the municipal board will often include the owner of the local gas station and the financial manager of the IGA supermarket as treasurer, for instance. These people are often not qualified. I always come back to the issue of qualification. These people are not qualified to pass informed by-laws. You might have the owner of a golf course who will push for a bylaw allowing him to use pesticides on his golf course, but ban it on homeowners' properties. We are ending up with more and more of these crazy rules or by-laws. Something has to be done.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. McCabe, last speaker.

    Mr. Don McCabe: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I just wanted to add that municipal zoning is fine to say that's an agricultural use, but you can also have agricultural zoning that is...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...agricultural activities, and if you don't have the necessary experts available at the municipalities you can lock yourself into some very costly lawyer suits, etc., over issues that should be mandated on a scientific, regulatory basis at the federal level.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you for your presentations and for your interest in the subject matter we're studying today. We reserve the right to call you if we want something clarified or want you to answer some question we didn't think of today. Again, thank you very much.

    This meeting is adjourned.