AGRI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

0910

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.))

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

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

0915

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

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

0920

0925

0930

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Ms. Janice Hopkins (Director, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

0935

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Dean Thomson

0940

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

Mr. Dean Thomson

0945

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Dean Thomson

0950

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Dean Thomson

0955

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Dean Thomson

1000

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Dean Thomson

1005

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Dean Thomson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Dean Thomson

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

1010

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 003

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): We will call our meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will focus this morning on the government response to the third report of the committee, Registration of Pesticides and the Competitiveness of Canadian Farmers. Our report was made last session.

We do have witnesses, but before we turn to them I'd like a little bit of direction from members. Our clerk, I believe, has circulated a schedule. One of its key points is the appearance before the committee of the minister. They have suggested that he should come on Thursday, November 28. A morning meeting would be at 8:30 and an afternoon one at 3:30. I was concerned that members might have other points on their agenda, which could take precedence.

Which of these two times would you prefer? Dick?

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): My preference would be the morning of Thursday, November 28, at our regular time.

The Chair: It's earlier than usual; that's the....

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): You're saying 8:30 in the morning, correct?

The Chair: So would that be acceptable?

Clerk, please make note and make those arrangements.

Are there any other points on the agenda for the next series of meetings before the Christmas break?

Moving on to the main focus this morning with the report.... We'd first like to welcome Mr. Dean Thomson, the chairman of the Crop, Plant Protection and Environment Committee of the Canadian Horticultural Council. From the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, we have Janice Hopkins and the newly appointed Dr. Gerke.

Some members had asked that Dr. Franklin be here. Maybe the clerk would tell us what has happened with that request. Second, it's my understanding that we have nobody here from the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps the clerk could mention for the record what has been done in terms of looking for a representation from Dr. Franklin and the department.

The Clerk of the Committee: Apparently, Dr. Franklin had too little notice to appear at this meeting; she was busy and couldn't appear. With the Department of Agriculture, it was the same case. We couldn't get its people to appear today.

The Chair: So, for the record, Dr. Franklin is not here this morning. She is one of the key people in this. The Department of Agriculture is apparently also too busy. Maybe some members would like to check on the number of employees here in Ottawa. Somewhere among that group, we might be able to ask these questions.

Mr. Thomson, welcome. We hope we've helped your industry in terms of what we've done here.

Point of order?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I feel rather disheartened this morning to come here. I appreciate the clerk's statement as to why individuals aren't here. This has been a major topic for the committee for quite some time. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe it's the mood I'm in this morning. I'll pick my words carefully this morning. I feel rather disappointed, I guess. Not to be demeaning to any official here this morning...I thank them for coming.

I think Ms. Franklin should show respect to this committee and come. This has been a hot topic. Perhaps she hasn't always agreed with my viewpoint on this particular matter. I'll take the heat on this one. I am representing people who elected me to come here and represent them. I feel rather slighted that we don't have officials here who deem this as important as we committee members do.

I want it on the record. We have spent a lot of good time on this, and I don't think people are really taking us seriously on the matter. To infuse dollars into this and say it's going to go away, it hasn't happened before. With this kind of support for the hard work we've done here, I'm taken aback a bit on this.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Your point is taken.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a point of order dealing with what Mrs. Ur has said.

I would suggest very strongly that this committee not hear the staff of the PMRA today and try to make ourselves available to Ms. Franklin at a time when she can in fact be at this committee. There are a number of issues where we have to deal with Ms. Franklin. As a matter of fact, the new ombudsman deals specifically with the director of the PMRA and not with anyone else. I think it's up to her to explain to us how she is going to deal with that particular position.

Therefore, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we ask Ms. Franklin to appear before us at a time when she can make it and we make ourselves available to her. To deal with it without her I think is really not acceptable.

Again, no injustice to the staff. I know the staff work very hard. The fact is the directive comes from the top. I think we have to deal with the director.

The Chair: Thank you for the two points. We will proceed, though, unless a motion is made.

I think we should first hear from the Horticultural Council.

Mr. Thomson, we would welcome your presentation.

It is my understanding at the table we also have two people from the agency, Ms. Hopkins and Dr. Gerke. Perhaps they could join us.

Mr. Dean Thomson (Chair, Crop, Plant Protection and Environment Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council): Good morning. Thank you for that introduction. As you said, I'm with the Canadian Horticultural Council. I'm an apple grower from St-Paul d'Abbotsford in Quebec. I'm happy that you are willing to listen to me this morning, after driving up here last night in the snow.

Most of what has been said in the last five minutes goes along with some of the things in my report to you.

I want to give you a bit more background on what has been going on with this situation in the last six months. I know you're very familiar with all the action that has gone on in this particular dossier over the last year. There has been movement, which I think you and a lot of other people can take a substantial amount of credit for.

The object today is to see where things have gone with the recommendations that were made by your committee. We're going to go through your recommendations and see how things have been addressed up to now.

Without any further delay, we'll start. With regard to recommendations 1 and 4, we certainly do appreciate the appointment of Dr. Imme Gerke as the minor use adviser. This will address many of our concerns, with the exception of the ability to intervene in the event of a dispute. I think it's important, to go along with what was said earlier, to really make it clear that Dr. Gerke is a minor use adviser, not an ombudsperson. I think we have to understand that they are two very different things. A lot of talk went on last spring about the two terms. We were throwing around the words “adviser” and “ombudsperson”. I think it's quite important to realize that they're not the same thing and that they aren't interchangeable.

One of our key recommendations in the guide we put out last year, which you're well aware of, was the appointment of an ombudsperson to oversee all the operations of the PMRA and to act as a court of appeal, similar to the U.S. EPA system. We feel this appointment is essential to ensure that PMRA fulfills its obligations. We encourage and challenge you to insist upon the implementation of such a position for the good of agriculture. As I said, although we welcome very much having Dr. Gerke work with us and feel it is a vital part of moving minor use registration ahead, it still leaves up in the air the need for somebody who can handle disputes that may arise.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

A minor use advisor cannot and would not be able to act in the same capacity as an ombudsman. The roles, we feel, are quite different. It is also important to note that Dr. Gerke was not appointed by the Minister of Health, but by the executive director of PMRA, to whom she reports. I note the committee recommendation number four was that this position report to the Ministers of Health and Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[English]

The minor use adviser will address issues pertaining to the minor use program but will not have the authority to intervene in any of the whole PMRA operation, as far as the regulatory process goes.

As well, in the government response, there is no mention of the role of the minor use adviser vis-à-vis the registrants. In talking with Dr. Gerke in the last little while, I think this is going to happen. I think she should have a strong relation with the registrants, industry, but I do think it wasn't necessarily stipulated anywhere in writing in the PMRA notes that came out that that would be part of her job. We would perhaps like to see that really put down, as there will be a connection with her and the registrants--a direct connection.

If we look at the second recommendation, the government response indicated that a full audit of pesticide management was being planned for a report to be issued in the fall of 2003. While we appreciate the action on this recommendation, taking into account our concerns relative to pesticide issues, we would have been pleased to have seen the audit undertaken sooner. Also, we feel it probably could have been undertaken sooner.

We hope that the new PCP Act will provide openness and access to data similar to the EPA policy--we know that has been a problem in the past--so as to not cause companies to shun Canada as a market for their products, which we know we have to take sometimes with a grain of salt. Are the companies telling the whole truth? It's always a question of who's telling the truth, where, but I think we can all say everybody has partly the truth when they speak on that subject.

We would like to see the transparency of the act extend to provide for PMRA to track progress through each review area so as to determine who is actually doing what. This would help identify areas requiring improvement and performance reporting. At the same time, we must ensure that none of this causes delay in meeting time lines for review and registration. We look forward to annual reports that outline efficiency gains, time line adherence, staff turnover, cost recovery, and other performance measures.

[Translation]

Regarding recommendation three, as noted in the government response, AAFC and PMRA addressed this recommendation but did not meet our expectations. The Canadian Horticulture Council was pleased with the announcements and appreciates the significant contributions that will be made over a five-year period. That addresses our concerns and our recommendations to improve Canadian pest management programs. As we said earlier, we are also aware that we cannot simply spend money to solve a problem; there has to be more to it than that. I think we have reached that point. Now that the budget has been allocated, it remains to be seen how it will be used.

[English]

Access to new technology has been a problem, and the solutions put forward will improve environmental, human, and economic health for Canadian consumers and growers and ensure a better future for Canadian agriculture. However, we still have some concerns. One of those concerns is that results cannot be achieved unless dedicated resources are put in place. We feel that the implementation of a minor use team is essential. Although PMRA has made commitments to provide additional support to existing minor use programs in order to facilitate access to new and reduced-risk minor uses and to double the amount of resources available for minor use review, we maintain that additional resources are required. When we talk about resources, we're obviously talking about human resources.

The PMRA must be efficient, user friendly, well funded, and staffed. The staff must be empowered to do the job. Excellent training programs must be in place for the constant stream of new staff, and communication with registrants, stakeholders, and the public must be greatly improved.

I think when we talk of new staff, we know it's not just within PMRA. All across the board, as far as government staffing goes, it's a problem that you really have to address, especially on this one because there is such a turnover. People move around a lot in this business, the research business, and I think it's something we really have to address to get some kind of coordinated effort that's going to be good on a long-term basis. So how do we deal with staff moving so quickly?

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 products that we are behind. In short, we must find a means to make these products available to the farmers of this country in a timely fashion.

Communication with stakeholders must be improved. We've talked about this a number of times. I guess we can only say that we're still somewhat disappointed with the communication.

¿ (0925)

I feel we've opened up some good communication with Dr. Gerke since she's been appointed. We did have a bit of a problem with the way she was appointed, because although it was a recommendation of ours last year to have somebody put in place to advise and consult on minor use issues, she was somewhat put in place without too much real discussion with us as to what the roles she would carry out would be. After talking with her, though, I think we are going to be able to really work together to build that position. She has informed me that she is open, and the idea is to basically work on this together, as she works along to see where the real needs are as far as a minor use adviser goes.

I think that can all be worked out. But it's still one of those things. We were asking for something and then it was thrown out and put there. It got into place before we really had a chance to say what it is and how we see it working. I think we're going to be able to get around that, but it still comes down to needing to have communication from one end to the other at all times.

[Translation]

The other point deals with specific action by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. AAFC must move quickly to hire staff, especially research directors; to organize the Canadian IR-4 program, including the implementation of certification for best laboratory practices for the six Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres; to establish laboratories; to improve the structure and the implementation process for prioritization; to put in place a national advisory committee and, lastly; to communicate with various stakeholders by way of progress reports.

Since the funding was announced, stakeholders have not received any official reports. Once again, it is a matter of communication. What I just said about the PMRA is, in my opinion, twice as bad at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I can tell you that I have spoken to people who are working almost exclusively on this file at present. We have obtained commitments that press releases would be sent to everyone in the sector. They were supposed to come out in October, and it is now November 19, and we have still not seen anything yet, once again. Of course people who are very closely involved with the file talk among themselves, but we feel that it is very important to inform the hundreds of people who are working on minor use in the provinces. There are researchers who really have a lot of wisdom with respect to minor use products. They know how things works, they know the process that is required for certification and for good laboratory practices. We know that it is not easy, that it takes time, and we do not understand why they have not been more involved to date in the process to implement a structure like IR-4. We feel that there is a lot of room for improvement on that level.

[English]

We are supportive of the reduced-risk initiative. However, this must parallel the U.S. EPA process so we don't re-invent the wheel. Many current products have been granted reduced-risk status in the United States. We must save time and effort by accepting these registrations and working jointly with the U.S. on future ones.

We have repeatedly demonstrated willingness to work with the PMRA and the AAFC registrants, as well as the U.S. EPA and the minor use program there. At the U.S. EPA, fully 55% of their files last year were for minor use registrations. We would certainly value an industry working relationship with the PMRA and AAFC similar to that in place between the U.S. EPA, the U.S. DA, and minor use program.

I will conclude that I feel this year there have been major positive steps made towards that goal. We're still hitting some rocky roads. I think there are people who have to realize, as I say, that communication has to happen. We have the money now. It's not a problem with funding. We feel that this program is amply funded with the announcement that was made last May. But it is a very large project. This is not a small scale thing. We also feel there are a lot of people out there who can help this project move along. I think it's now a matter of getting the work done and making sure that people are moving this along.

¿ (0930)

With that, I'd like to thank the committee for the time you've given me.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thomson.

Ms. Hopkins, do you have a presentation to make next--

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Mr. Thomson for his presentation.

I'd like to make a motion at this time. The motion is that we decline to hear the PMRA presentations regarding committee recommendations until such time as the director appears before the committee, and that the chairman of the committee be directed to expedite that appearance.

The Chair: It's a bit irregular to do this in the midst of a hearing, but if all members agree, we could entertain that motion. Is there any dissenting vote to considering that motion? Hearing none, I will entertain it then, David.

Is there a seconder?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): I will second the motion.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

I'm sorry, Mr. Thomson, to have--

Mr. David Anderson: I guess my point is that we've made some recommendations here, and with all due respect to the witnesses who have appeared, the recommendations should be addressed by the director. I feel that in some ways, actually, the director has put Dr. Gerke in the unenviable position of having to defend her appointment without us being able to discuss how that was made and the fact that I think it goes against two of the recommendations. They've put two of them together. They've put one person in place where we recommended two, and I think we should hear from the director as to why they have responded to the recommendations the way they have. I don't think it's fair to the staff to send them to try to justify her decisions. I would suggest they are in some conflict in having to do that.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): While I think of it, Mr. Chair, I think on both sides of the table we want to assure ourselves that we will have the opportunity to ask Mr. Thomson questions. Whatever the outcome of this is--I'm not going to speak regarding the motion--I would think we would want to hear from Mr. Thomson. We appreciate his coming here today through the storm.

The Chair: I think that's the intent.

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's great. Okay.

The Chair: Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Doctor, my apologies, and Ms. Hopkins.

I think the message was very strong from the beginning that we did want the director to come. We are not in any way questioning your ability to present to committee, but we have had a lot of discussion on this issue in the past.

Dr. Franklin certainly has not accepted the committee's invitation this morning. I know she may have good reasons, but as chair I would suggest that we take back to her the message that we are very busy people too. We have a lot of obligations as members of Parliament, not only here in Ottawa but in travelling the country. We're here from practically every region, at great personal difficulty sometimes, and we would like to hear from her when she would be available. Hopefully, it would be a time at which the committee would also be meeting, and we hope it will be in the very near future.

Getting back to the presentation, Mr. Thomson, thank you very much.

Yes, Ms. Hopkins.

Ms. Janice Hopkins (Director, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Mr. Chair, perhaps I may very briefly thank you for the consideration of the committee. I will certainly ensure that the message is carried back to Dr. Franklin. I would like to assure the committee that there was certainly no disrespect intended, nor any lack of priority given to the committee's recommendations. The difficulty was, indeed, a scheduling difficulty, and Dr. Franklin does regret being unable to be here with you, but she is out of town.

We will certainly take your invitation back to her.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: For the record, in checking this, there is certainly an apology I need to make because apparently the invitation to her was very restrictive. I thought we offered about nine possible dates, but I see that this was the only one offered. Certainly, we want to point that out and make sure it is part of the record.

We do have a number of meetings, but in any case, it certainly is a point that the only date that was offered was this morning's. So certainly convey that message too.

Mr. Thomson, may we proceed then?

David, are you to lead the questions?

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Thomson, I see that you're in favour of the minor use adviser position that has been put in place.

I want to talk a little bit about the ombudsperson. In the recommendation we made it clear that they were to be independent and that their role was to represent farmers' interests to the agency. The minor use person was to try to work with the Americans in terms of harmonization and setting up a program that could work with them, and we're in favour of that. But they've combined the two positions, and basically we end up with neither one of them, I think. I'm wondering if you would talk a little bit about your position regarding the ombudsperson and the importance of that.

Mr. Dean Thomson: This confusion over the adviser and ombudsperson started right from the beginning, not long after we brought out our guide last November. The PMRA did address it. But all of a sudden things started to get mixed up between ombudsperson and adviser.

As I said before, I think Imme is going to play a big role in moving things along for minor use.

For the ombudsperson, what we were recommending was a neutral person, who would not answer to the director of PMRA, to whom producers or registrants could go and say, the decision was made here. We're not sure why or whether it's valid. It could be valid, but we're just not sure. We want to have some kind of place where we can go and discuss with, say, an arbitrator why this worked out the way it did when over here it didn't seem to be the same case. So it's really having a third party, as you do in many situations where you have registration going on, where you can get all the parties together and have a negotiable approach. From what we've seen in the EPA, there does exist a much more negotiable approach, especially when you talk about reduced risks, pesticides, and so forth, as far as the data requirements are concerned and what is needed, what is acceptable, what has been done in other countries, and so forth.

So rather than go directly to PMRA and have them say, no, that's the way it is, it's having somebody who can look at it objectively and say, that's one view, but maybe we'll look elsewhere and see if we can find some common ground. We've always felt that it's a fairly straightforward request. It's not too complicated. It's for an ombudsperson to do what an ombudsperson does, which is to try to settle certain disputes, which could be minor or major, between two parties.

Mr. David Anderson: One of the reasons I think we felt so strongly about that recommendation was because we had heard of ongoing communication problems and an ongoing inability to hold this agency accountable. That was why we made the recommendation for that independent ombudsperson.

You seem to be in favour of the position of adviser that has been set up. We had recommended that it be primarily concerned with facilitating activities related to minor use products, particularly with regard to harmonization with the United States. In the recommendation that has come back, it seems as if the roles and responsibilities of that person are going to be more related to farmers' problems. So you end up with an adviser for farmers, with a minor focus on those issues of harmonization, rather than the opposite. Is that a concern for you?

Mr. Dean Thomson: It is a concern to me, and it goes back to what I stated earlier. For us it was somewhat strange the way Dr. Gerke was put in place, without much consultation beforehand to see if we were both thinking the same thing. Anybody can read something and interpret it the way they would like to or the way they feel they have to. So we were a little bit concerned about the way that was done.

As I said, I think Dr. Gerke can really help move things along. The way it has been put to me is that it's now up to the whole program we put in place to determine what Dr. Gerke is going to be doing and where we're going to have the most need. Dr. Gerke has started meeting some grower groups, and, from what she has told me, initially she will be informing growers on how the system works and how the changes we see taking place are going to be implemented. So that has started, and I think that's good.

But I also think that before we get too far into things, we have to set out a clear mandate as to where the need is. Is it really just having an adviser dealing with the U.S. as far as harmonization is concerned? I don't believe that's the only thing. I think there needs to be a lot of coordination between the provinces on minor use. We have minor use advisers in each province, and I think that once again we are lacking communication between the provinces to make a cohesive effort on minor use registration. My biggest fear is that Dr. Gerke could quickly end up with a lot of work to do, because there are a lot of needs there. I think we're going to have to draw some lines as to just how much we can dump on this position. We certainly can't dump everything on to it, such as our wish list.

¿ (0940)

Mr. David Anderson: Those roles and responsibilities that she has been given are far broader than we had suggested in our recommendation. I think you're right that we need to keep an eye on that. I'll pass it on.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dean, we've been going through this, and of course you know what we asked for. This is not exactly what we asked for, but I think it's a good step in the right direction. Of course, being at the front end of this, we're going to have to deal with all hypothetical questions, and I hate dealing with that, but we will.

Do you see any encumbrances in the fact that Dr. Gerke's job is out of the same department? Would that hinder her in doing her job effectively?

Mr. Dean Thomson: That's a very good question. Theoretically, no, it shouldn't be a problem. Just because I'm a grower representative and a grower myself and out there in the field--we know often, whether it's real or not, perception becomes one of the most important things when we're dealing with moving things like this along. So like it or not, we all know there have been a lot of negative things said about PMRA. Some of them may be somewhat true; some of them not. I think there's a certain amount of perception out there that this is it, that PMRA is a fairly closed box, and if they just bring somebody else up through their own ranks, basically answering to their own office, then maybe we can only go to a certain limit with that person.

That said, really what Dr. Gerke is supposed to do she should be able to carry out within the realm of the PMRA without really having to have some kind of supreme power above the PMRA. But as I say, the question is interesting, because this whole thing is going to be a huge effort in communication between a lot of different people, and unfortunately there's a lot of perception out there as to, well, can I feel totally comfortable saying this or talking to this person or saying what I feel I have to say? So there's all this stuff that really I would like to see not play into a situation, but unfortunately, I think we have to call a spade a spade, as it exists right now.

From my experience with Dr. Gerke, I think she's a person who will probably be able to handle that. It's going to make her job tough, and I think when she accepted this job she knew very well what she was getting into. She has a lot of experience from the industry side, so I think she's coming from a good background to be able to handle that situation.

So I guess the answer is, yes, I think she can do the job she has to do, if it's very clear that it's two different jobs. We have a minor use adviser, and we have an ombudsperson who hasn't been named yet and we haven't really talked about. We just cannot expect her to do what we had in our minds as being an ombudsperson. I don't think she'll be able to do that within the realm of basically answering to Dr. Franklin.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Murray Calder: What do you think would be a reasonable length of time for us to assess this new direction and how it is going to work, and if in fact it is working?

Mr. Dean Thomson: That's another good question. I always have a hard time with this whole issue, because as a farmer you take care of problems really quickly. That's not to blame anybody, because that's the way the system works, and things always seem to take much longer than we feel they should. But I think we have to play out this year right now, meaning going into 2003. The first real data and research year will be 2003 with the new system in place. So I think we have to go through basically until next fall to see how things work out.

Mr. Murray Calder: So it might be a reasonable request, then, for the committee to get you back here, say, sometime in September 2003, and find out how in fact everything is working.

Mr. Dean Thomson: I would think next year at this time we will have a very good idea of whether things are moving along or not.

But even then.... As I say, Ag Canada is now in the process of putting into place a similar IR-4 system in Canada through their research centres. They're going to start doing work this upcoming spring and summer. But we know a lot of projects aren't one-year projects, and before PMRA necessarily starts to get to review some of these things, it could actually be two years down the road. But I think after one year what we will see is, are all the parties starting to find a way to work together, to move forward in the same direction? We won't necessarily see the results A to Z, but I think we'll see whether we are moving together in a way that we feel we should.

Mr. Murray Calder: I have a final question, Mr. Chair.

One of the things we heard about as a committee, and when I was with the task force on future opportunities for agriculture we heard the same thing, is the need to have the Canadian system of assessment the same as the U.S. system of assessment. Thereby, we can start sharing information and cut down on the registration time.

Do you see any encumbrances within the proposal right now that would not facilitate it?

Mr. Dean Thomson: No, I don't see anything that will hamper it moving along. When we start talking about harmonization, we know it has come out of PMRA often that we're already 90% there. Then we get into the old story where 90% is only worth what it is when the other 10% blocks everything.

It's where we've often felt an ombudsperson could play the role. Where we have our little differences, where this is unacceptable because it's not the way we do it in Canada and so forth, maybe an ombudsperson would be able to say there's a slight difference in the legislation in Canada compared to the U.S., but we could possibly look at doing something in this way or that way. It's where we really felt an ombudsperson could possibly help in the harmonization process.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay, that's fine.

The Chair: Thanks, Murray.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Thompson for his presentation.

In your comments to us this morning, you indicated you did not see the minor use adviser and the ombudsperson as interchangeable positions. Yet it's contrary to, obviously, what the ministers of Health and Agriculture and Agri-Food said. They consistently use the terminology of a minor use adviser (ombudsperson).

I know you talked about the ombudsperson being the court of appeal. Could you go over that ground again?

Again, the government is saying we want to model this on a minor use adviser in the United States. Perhaps tell us, at the same time, is it consistent?

Mr. Dean Thomson: There is a somewhat equal position in the U.S to the minor use adviser. The appeal system, I think, is somewhat different. Right now, we don't really have an appeal system in Canada.

I think we get muddled with a lot of this. I've talked to some people at Ag Canada who are working on putting in the new Canadian IR-4 program, and with PMRA. It gets to a point where, yes, we do have to somewhat forget the past and try to move on to make things work.

What mystifies me though is I'm not really sure what the problem is with having an ombudsman. I don't see why everyone is scared about having a person there who, depending on the year and if everything works properly, might not really see much action. I don't know. I think some people might have taken it as some kind of a threat or reproach against the way the PMRA was functioning. I don't really think that's what it was meant to be.

It was simply, I guess, a reaction from a number of people. It's not only one or two persons. You did hear a lot of people last year. This wasn't one or two groups saying something. I think it was in reaction to a definite feeling out there.

As I say, there's always a certain amount of perception involved. Whether it's total reality or not doesn't really matter at a certain point. If the perception is there, there has to be something wrong somewhere to make so many people perceive that it is a need.

With the two together, I definitely don't see how Dr. Gerke really could do it. Her job, as far as I can see, is going to be very much on working relations with growers and PMRA, trying to get them to work together.

At the same time, how can you have a person who, at some point, is going to side with someone on one issue?

If we were all great adults and so forth, we could always handle it. We know, in the system we have, feelings can get hurt. Feelings get into it, and also things that shouldn't get into it.

What is the complication of simply having an ombudsperson who lets the advisers do the communication work they have to do?

It's important to basically keep doors open all over the place. Why not have an ombudsperson who would have a more minor role in the whole situation, but an important role just the same? Why don't we have the person there?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Dick Proctor: You also indicated some concern overall with communications between your organization and PMRA. Do you have some specific suggestions as to how to improve that for the committee this morning?

Mr. Dean Thomson: In the few years that I've been working on the pesticide issue I don't know what it is that makes communication hard. I would really say that I'm not going to say any more about PMRA than I will about Agriculture Canada, and I would say that if communication has been very lacking since the huge announcement in May, then communication has been just as bad with Agriculture Canada as it has been with PMRA.

I don't really understand what happened, to be quite honest with you.

First of all, I will always accept some of the blame, because as a grower rep.... The growers are in the field from May until November, and then all of a sudden we put on our ties and come to Ottawa. That doesn't mean we can't pick up a phone and talk and so forth, but we're not as accessible as at other times of the year. And it so happened that the announcement of the whole budget was done in May and June, right at the time when farmers were basically out in the field.

That might not have helped. But I have been more in touch with people working in the policy branch at Agriculture Canada who are responsible to try to implement this Canadian IR-4, and I'm not sure what's going on there. We met in July, we met in September, and basically we got out of it some comments saying, yes, we're aware that right now this is a huge project with the research stations taking over the GLP work--good laboratory practice--getting registered to do that, conforming to all the standards they have to, to do that kind of work. There are not that many centres. I think there are now two that are officially GLP in Canada. So there's a lot of work to do there.

We know that time is going on. Every week we lose right now gets it tighter and tighter to get those trial plots going for the spring. We've tried to transmit that sense of urgency, that we don't have any time to waste to get things off the ground for 2003, and we've said we have to work with people who have been doing it. This isn't something new. We have people in Canada who have been doing minor use work for a number of years now who have experience in it and have experience in dealing with GLP-compliant situations.

There is quite a good wealth of knowledge there, and yet these people have generally been left out of the loop. You have to understand, the people doing most of this work up to now have been independent researchers and they have been basically shouldering the brunt of the work over the last few years. They've been waiting and waiting. Is there a place left for them, or do they basically close up shop and do something else? I think basically all they've been waiting for is to hear how this new system is going to work.

Month after month we've heard from Agriculture Canada that we're going to get something out to them and we're going to explain it to them, and we'd be stupid not to use all the resources we have available to us and pick their brains and so forth. I hate to make a smart remark, but if we don't hear something fairly soon, then I'm going to start wondering, is Agriculture Canada stupid or not? Because basically right now we haven't seen them really going out and using all the people they can access.

So if you want my honest opinion right now, I have a lot more concern about what's going on in Agriculture Canada than PMRA.

With PMRA, as I said, there's a communication problem, but I think there has been movement done to move ahead on things, and right now I find the people who are dragging their feet are the people at Agriculture Canada

Back in July we said, yes, we have time, let's just make sure we keep moving. In October we were starting to get a bit concerned: we were supposed to have a communiqué to send out to all our members as to where they were going and what was the game plan, and it's now November 19 and we basically still haven't gotten anything .

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thomson, and Dick.

We're going to have to try to keep our answers a little bit shorter. Maybe the questioners are losing their time too.

Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: First of all--and maybe this would be to you, Mr. Chair, rather than to Mr. Thomson--perhaps I've misplaced, in all the information coming across my desk on the appointment of Dr. Gerke, the information as to when she was appointed. We have a couple of journalists working with the agriculture committee, and they weren't even aware of her appointment. I'd kind of like to have a bio/job description/contract of what her background is brought before the committee, before they come back. I think it might answer a few of our questions.

As to your presentation, being in the industry you are, minor use is very vital to your industry. I've been there, done it, got the hat, so I can appreciate where you're coming from. You said staffing was a problem, that they needed more people. When this was created, the numbers never decreased. There's a large number of staff there. How many people do we need to make this function? It just seems to be a large bureaucracy and there doesn't seem to be a lot of information flowing out, or positive results. When we have the United States approving 900-plus in the year 2000 and we do 24, there's a problem.

Mr. Dean Thomson: How many staff are needed? That's a good question. I'm not a staffing person for PMRA. We are told they are understaffed. To move things along, it takes more reviewers to basically review information. The data packages that are coming in now that were like this for ten years are now basically like this. It is kind of normal that it's going to take more people more time to review the different submissions that are coming in.

How many people? I think that comes into the area of the ombudsperson or whatever. I don't really think that has to be the ombudsperson's job, but somebody.... We do have the EMAC and PMAC committees at PMRA--I sit on both of them--to really try to figure out where the efficiencies are. We do need to find a reporting system where we are seeing whether we are doing things as efficiently as possible.

Do we need more people or do we need to be doing things better? That's always the question. It's easy to say we need more people, but maybe we can do better with what we have.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think the latter is probably more true. This is something that has really been a problem for me. I think that agency needs to have a review to make sure everyone who's working there is working to the best of their capabilities.

You said we needed a minor use team. What would you suggest would make up a minor use team?

Mr. Dean Thomson: Well, this is basically referring to whatever Ag Canada is finally going to put into place dealing directly with PMRA and Dr. Gerke, and getting all the provincial minor use coordinators, which are already in place.... Each province does have its minor use coordinator. It's basically getting more of a synergy between those provincial coordinators and finding the system so everybody is clear as to how the system works and what steps you go through.

Say you have a grower in Manitoba who has some kind of cabbage problem, and he's heard about a product that's available in the States. Where does he go to, and how does the whole process move along from there? We've had that kind of process in the past, but once again, it hasn't been clear for everybody.

Also, you have to say that different provinces have had more funding to put into their minor use activities than other provinces. All this has to be coordinated so that no matter what province you're in or what your problem is, the system is going to work smoothly for you.

The minor use team is really what.... Ag Canada is supposed to be putting in their research the IR-4 type of program, with their research stations. We've also been waiting very patiently up till now to see what the administrative board of this whole thing is going to look at. Obviously there are going to be grower groups at the table. You don't just put some kind of big machine in place without some kind of governing board. So that's going to be an important step too. That's not going to be the team, but there's going to have to be somebody overseeing it as to how the team's going to be formed and working.

À (1000)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Murray's right, we're dealing in a bit of a vacuum right now. Dr. Gerke is setting up a process, setting up a plan. We don't know who the players are in this plan and process just yet. It would be nice to have Dr. Franklin here to be able to lay out that plan for us as a committee. The communication is obviously not just lacking with the stakeholders and growers, but with this committee as well. So we're dealing in a vacuum.

I'm going to ask you some questions, and I'm not so sure you even have answers because I'm not so sure anybody has answers.

The reason this committee was so intent on an ombudsperson was that they felt there needed to be that appeal process that you've talked to. In your opinion, knowing the process and the plan right now and the way it's sort of been laid out and the information we've gathered, do you and your organization believe there is still not that appeal process that's necessary? I know you've touched on that in your comments, but in my small mind, I see that there is no independent appeal process at this time and that it doesn't seem to be anticipated in the future. Is that where we're heading, Dean?

Mr. Dean Thomson: I'm not aware of an appeal process in place at this time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, and that's good because it also says that if there are problems, then the issue should make its way to the minister. Is the minister the appeal process?

Mr. Dean Thomson: All I can say is that with a lot of the work we did last fall...our big kick-off with the guide we put out started last year at this very time, at the end of November. We basically ended up going to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And here we are, but we still don't have that.

Mr. Dean Thomson: That's all I can say. I don't know if that answers the question.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, we did...and I'm sure we will have them, Bob. I'm sure, as this committee decided when you weren't here, that in fact Dr. Franklin will be making that presentation at a later date, and I think it's necessary that this committee hear her.

I do thank Dean and the Horticultural Council for their insight into this.

You also mention that there have been some positive steps made in the American harmonization process. Can you give me some understanding of the positive steps you see? When you say 90% is there, 10% may not be. Where do we have to go from here with that other 10%?

Mr. Dean Thomson: The new pesticide act legislation is going to address some of the confidentiality problems that PMRA has consistently told us are a problem for them when it comes into data sharing. It definitely appears that is the case. In Canada we do not deal with the same laws as far as privacy acts are concerned for companies and their information...and having to basically make different information available. There are certain laws that are not the same as what is in the U.S. Those laws seem to prohibit some of the exchange of data.

From what we've seen in the new legislation, I think some of those are going to be addressed. That's why we did support the new legislation, and we hope it's going to be implemented as soon as possible.

There has been progress made on joint reviews. PMRA this past spring-summer have basically come out with some new politics on reduced-risk products. I'm still not sure that what they're coming out with is really going to make an equivalent of what's in the U.S. It definitely is a change, but I'm not 100% clear that it's going to basically line us right up with what the U.S. is doing. That's always my concern. You can come very close, but if you don't come close enough so that certain things can be exchanged and considered equivalent, then I'm not sure if you improve the situation a lot.

From what I've seen there is an openness also in PMRA to try to work toward that.

I would like to take the opportunity to say that I don't want to get too much into bashing PMRA, because I have seen some positive things happen this year. And people at PMRA will tell you I've been one of the people bashing them fairly hard in the last few years. I'd like to give credit where credit is due, and there is movement, but I think we have to keep that up.

I see it happen in private businesses and in my own business. You make a really good move and you feel really good about yourself, and all of a sudden you sit back and relax because you feel this is good, right?

À (1005)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Dean, perhaps I can sneak another question in here. Agriculture Canada is developing a parallel program to the IR-4 program. I don't believe we've had any communications with respect to that parallel program. Have you, as a stakeholder in Horticulture Canada, heard of any kind of a plan or any kind of a makeup of that pseudo IR-4 program through Agriculture Canada?

Mr. Dean Thomson: Yes, I've heard of it because I'm the chair of our crop protection committee at CHC.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you heard of the plan, though? Have you seen where the plans went?

Mr. Dean Thomson: Yes, it's basically starting to take form, and we know a little about how the plan's going to work, but still the master plan as far as A to Z is concerned is definitely not in place yet. It's still a work in progress.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Rick.